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?

lunarchick - 05:49pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2223 of 2226)
lunarchick@www.com

Noticed a list of countries re IT:

* Netscape Strong Encryption Eligibility

Netscape Browser software contains encryption technology that is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban-controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia (except Kosovo), Sudan and Syria) or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports (including Denied Parties, entities on the Bureau of Export Administration Entity List, and Specially Designated Nationals). For more information on the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774, and the Bureau of Export Administration ("BXA"), please see the BXA homepage homepage.

rshowalter - 06:16pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2224 of 2226)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I thought Thomal L. Friedman's One Nation, 3 Lessons http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/opinion/13FRIE.html was a fine piece, though a Russian or a moralist might be offended by some of it. For the parts I liked best, that doesn't matter; Friedman's last paragraph is very good advice for any nation state, dealing with any other. I'm abridging, modifying, and generalizing it here. In general, from any peaceful and rational NationY's point of view, it makes sense to

" build bridges to NationX everywhere reasonably possible, because bridges can serve mutual interst, and bonds tend to restrain the regime from hurting us; and draw red lines everywhere reasonably necessary, because NationX's nationalism, insecure leadership, and diffences in points of view can produce irrational behavior, unnecssarily against our interests or comfort. . . .

" It makes sense to do this, and hope that over time NationX continues, as it slowly has been, to become a nation more congenial to our ideas and interests. And hope that we may, as we slowly have been, become accomodated to them in ways that are comfortable to us.

The golden rule, for nations that have real differences in culture and circumstances. Good results come when all sides deal with each other in this way, with calibrated responses. Responses based on things that are factually true.

An essential argument against nuclear weapons (one of a number) is that they are so uncalibrated, and are, essentially always, a grossly disproportionate means to any reasonable end.

An essential argument against missile defense as a solution to our nuclear insecurities is that, as a matter of checkable fact, it doesn't work, and can't work.

rshowalter - 06:18pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2225 of 2226)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Another part I liked was this:

" Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake."

That might be usefully generalized ---- to the extent that human beings, and human groups, are insecure in their sense of legitimacy, they find themselves unable to admit mistakes, or unfortunate circumstances, and are forced to lie.

For people living in the complicated, conflicted world, legitimacy is not only a moral challenge -- it is an intellectual challenge, too. Organizations that cannot meet that challenge inhibit discussion -- and thereby admit their illegitimacy.

For this reason, openness is a challenge. It requires people to figure out, for themselves and for others, what it is that they are doing, and why they are doing it. It requires intellectual effort, and careful balancing - logical negotiation, in one's own mind, with one's group, and between societies, as well.

Since legitimacy depends so much on system of ideas, openness, which effects legitimacy, is a central power issue.

The United States is right to ask for openness from others.

The same logic, however, applies to the United States itself.

There are US organizations, and sociotechnical systems, that are closed indeed, and that lie as a matter of course.

If the US has a right to object to such organizations and sociotechnical systems when they occur in other countries, other countries have a right to object to ours.

rshowalter - 06:34pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2226 of 2226)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

No one has to doubt that in "realism" a societies first duty is to order. And that implies an essential duty to "defend the country."

The question is how it may be done, and at what cost.

"First duties" are not the only duties, or even the most important duties. After one has reasonably met one's "first duty" -- ideally at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with safety -- there are other duties, too. Especially if the ideals Americans profess are to mean much.

Is it sensible, is it proportionate, for us to rely on nuclear weapons? What can we use them for?

Is it sensible, is it proportionate, for us to make committements to weapons systems that have no technical merit?

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense