New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 08:45am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2185 of 2189)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Nuclear weapons are obsolete menaces, especially with the defective technical and human controls now in place, and they should be taken down, and effectively prohibited.

The United States should cease using them to threaten other nations in "bluffs" that remain, and have long been, both dishonorable and very damaging.

A combination of technical and diplomatic means, and other persuasive means, need to be employed, with discipline and a feel for proportion, to get answers of disciplined beauty here.

Prohibition of nuclear weapons may not be possible for a while -- though I think it should be possible soon, with right action. But the risk to the survival of the world that currently exists can be eliminated, and we can move a long way in the direction of safety.

A replacement of "Mutually Assured Destruction" by "Mutually Assured Deterrance" -- the practical correllate of renunciation of first use of nuclear weapons, would be a big step in the right direction.

Good answers here cannot be founded on lies.

rshowalter - 08:54am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2186 of 2189)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

This spoof from the Onion is funny, and yet, at another level, it isn't so funny after all.

Navy Admiral Considers Death of Son in the Acceptable Loss Range

SAN DIEGO-- At a Monday press conference from the steps of his home, Navy Admiral William McManus categorized the death of his son in a weekend car crash as "a casualty within the acceptable loss range for this family."

" The unforeseeable death of my son is tragic," said McManus, clad in full Navy dress. "No one ever wants to see a young life lost. However, even as the family weeps, we must keep in mind that the damage to our unit is minimal. We have the personnel and emotional reserves necessary to move forward." http://www.theonion.com/onion3713/navy_admiral_considers.html

almarst-2001 - 10:07am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2187 of 2189)

rshowalter 4/12/01 8:54am

The choice between a "perfect" robot and "imperfect" human?

rshowalter - 10:52am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2188 of 2189)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Admiral McManus" is recognizably human, as Eichmann was human, as Hitler was human, as Curtis LeMay was human, as Stalin was human, as George Bush is human, and as we are all human. But "McManus," a fictional character who represents a lot of military figures, especially as they discuss nuclear weapons, and also "becq," as he discussed nuclear weapons with me, shows some characteristics of humanity at its worst.

The United States should be ashamed of itself for, so often, and so inauthentically, taking stances such as "McManus" takes.

The rest of the world should be somewhat ashamed of letting the United States get away with it -- the fact that threatening other nations with nuclear weapons has been standard US procedure in diplomacy for generations, and that the US has been allowed to get away with it, is something all humanity should be ashamed of.

That the bluff is, in large part pure bluff. (Not, alas, entirely, the US knows how to train monsters fully as monstrous as the Nazis, in large part on the basis of procedures derived from Nazi handbooks that I have read -- techniques used to reduce the Kapos in the death camps to the horriffic robots they became are thoroughly understood in the US military, and sometimes used, full force, on US military personnel.)

Does effective outlawing of nuclear weapons, in ways that count for a great deal, really depend on the participation of the United States?

Why not use the idea of hostages -- hostages that the US is so sentimental about, though it stands ready for mass murder of others?

The techniques for making real progress here might not be too much harder than getting the 106 signatures that were collected against militarization of space.

The US may be able, technically, to use nuclear weapons.

The rest of the world is just as able, technically, to assure the US of credible, moderate action that would be taken if it did.

If the rest of the world was united in such action - that would make a huge practical and political difference in the United States, and real progress toward peace, which the United States now keeps from occurring, might happen directly, gracefully, and with justice and redemptive solutions nicely combined.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense