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?

almarst-2001 - 11:13am Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2211 of 2215)

Christians Against NATO Aggression - http://canauk.human-rights.org/

rshowalter - 12:04pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2212 of 2215)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With respect to rshowalter 4/12/01 12:24pm

my reasons for thinking dendritic spines can be destroyed in resonance are set out in rshowalter "How the Brain Works" 4/13/01 11:47am

rshowalter - 12:50pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2213 of 2215)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In this thread, Dawn Riley and I have argued, as carefully and persuasively as we've known how to, that people should, and can, find ways to make the world more peaceful, and especially can find ways to reduce the magnitude of current nuclear risks so that the world can be preserved.

We believe that, with some human insight and responsible conduct, nuclear weapons can be effectively prohibited, in ways that make all concerned safer, more secure, and more free in the ways that matter to human beings.

A central part of the argument has been that, to make peace, the past must be understood -- so that "everybody is reading off the same page."

Different people and groups might feel very different about what happened. But if they agree on the basic facts that are of mutual interest, negotiations permitting complex cooperation are possible.

A core issue is apology -- and in complex, multiply articulated circumstances, apologies may well be appropriate in both directions .

I've set out a story, that I believe sets out essential truths pretty clearly -- in a Guardian Talk thread I've referenced here very often .. Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror .

I believe references to these links my unify parts of the argument that, I feel, would make much progress possible if they were mutually understood.

286: rshowalt 9/25/00 4:24pm

329: rshowalt 9/28/00 1:27pm

509-510: rshowalter 11/19/00 2:03pm

679-681: rshowalter 2/12/01 12:58pm

740: rshowalter 2/21/01 3:34pm

750: rshowalter 2/22/01 5:45am

794: rshowalter 2/27/01 6:15pm

816: rshowalter 3/1/01 4:25pm

885: rshowalter 3/9/01 12:21pm

888: rshowalter 3/9/01 12:37pm

891: rshowalter 3/9/01 12:43pm

955: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:14pm

968: rshowalter 3/13/01 8:17am

995: rshowalter 3/14/01 5:17pm

1482: rshowalter 3/25/01 4:13pm

1484: rshowalter 3/25/01 4:31pm

1693: rshowalter 3/29/01 12:07pm

1794: rshowalter 3/30/01 2:24pm

1827: rshowalter 3/31/01 11:47am

1925: rshowalter 4/2/01 8:00pm

2066: rshowalter 4/6/01 1:43pm

rshowalter - 12:53pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2214 of 2215)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is 286: rshowalt 9/25/00 4:24pm

becq has two contradictory posts just above - one saying we can't use first strikes, the next saying that we can, and can do so advantageously, to avoid a few casualties.

Well, no American, after all these years, has ever actually made a first strike, thank God. But we use the "option" of a first strike routinely in our patterns of discussion, in our patterns of deception, in the lies that we tell other countries when we threaten them. We should come up with safer lies.

Ridiculous, outrageous lies can be very effective in psychological warfare. They disorient. There's no response to their absurdity.

In the movie Casablanca , Captain Renault, the corrupt prefect of police, is ordered by a Nazi to shut RICK's down. He has no reason, and he's told to find one. He finds a good one - good because it is so absurd.

" I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED, to find gambling going on here."

Well, Renault gambles at Ricks many nights, and all know it. In this scene, Renault recieves some gambling winnings as he's delivering his line. Others have no response to the absurdity.

We use threats of first strikes, or discussion of first strikes in our systems of operations, to disorient minds. It is very effective psychological warfare. A good deal of the history of the Cold War turns on this psychological warfare. The Cold War is over, and we should stop fighting it, and get rid of the dangerous props we use for lies we've grown fond of.

We have plenty of other ways that we can threaten other nation states.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense