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?

gisterme - 01:39pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2998 of 3001)

juddrox wrote: "...Why is Missile Defense Technology even an issue?

IT DOES NOT WORK..."

Same arguement made against neary every new (not necessarily military) technology. Let's see...the internet and stealth technology are a couple I can think of right off. Resistance to change is a natural thing I suppose. However, even rshowalter, being a PE, should be able to tell you it's much easier to prove a thing feasible than not. Don't forget that for most of history it was believed that man could never fly. Heh heh, is that so surprising coming from a species that took hundreds of centuries to invent the wheel?

Tell me, why should getting rid of half of my guns and putting bullet resistant glass in my house be such a threat to my neighbors?

rshowalter - 01:41pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2999 of 3001)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 5/2/01 1:09pm "Okay, Robert, I'll bite. What are the lies, the missteps and who is the very small extraconstitutional group?"

Lies:

The United States, from the time of the Eisenhower administration on, had a policy of threatening - in effect, scaring, the Soviet Union into a situation where long-term collapse of the Soviet Union would occur. The Russians were vulnerable to this, and we knew it. We scared them to the edge of paralysis, and put their system under pressure that, over years, they could not withstand.

To do that, there had to be a great deal of deception and manipulation in our dealing with the Soviets -- it was in our interest to let them feel that we were, continuously and actively, plotting first strikes -- something that they did believe.

To make the strategy work, the United States government also had to overstate, continuously and often radically the extent of the Soviet threat to both the American people and to Congress, which, very, very often, funded the US defense system under false pretenses. ( The Soviet postion, monstrous as the society was in many ways, was usually defensive --- we were practically never "outgunned" any militarily significant way, from 1955 on. )

There were many lies involved with this policy. Perhaps they were lies in a good cause, and justified. But a tremendous amount of deception, over long duration, and much manipulation of Americans in ways inconsistent with American ideals and institutions.

Missteps:

There were a number of missteps, but I feel this one was the largest: .... When the Soviet Union did collapse, we did not turn our nuclear threats off, and the Russians have been near-paralyzed, as a result of psychological warfare that should have been ended, since.

The very small extraconstitutional group:

To run the very long term policy of getting the Soviet Union to break, by maintaining very high fear levels, and at the same time to minimize tensions on our own side, and to keep threats we were making, that our own people would not tolerate, from being known, a small group of military and CIA officers, initially very much influenced by Curtis LeMay, set up a long-term organization. The organization was extraconstitutional and in some ways informal, and very largely independent of political control. After the Kennedy administration, it was not entirely under the control of the President of the United States. At sometimes, almost independent of presidential will. The President did, in more than name, control the decision to actually fire nuclear weapons (LeMay had tried to take that unto himself) but LeMay and related people and their successors did, as a practical matter, control most nuclear policy, with little or no effective supervision, or really capable financial accounting.

On these threads there's a good deal more detail, and I'll go after it -- but that's the gist of it.

There were reasons why this happened. Some of them good reasons at the time.

But the nuclear terror is an American invention and development. We've used threat and terror, very effectively, for a long time. If we took action, and acknowledged what we did, then effective nuclear disarmament would be possible -- at least to the point where nuclear risks were no larger than many of the natural disaster risks we cope with.

atwnw - 01:45pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3000 of 3001)

George W. Bully is now going to trade the national interest for the benefit of his constituent - the military-industrial complex. We should not support him anymore in the next election; otherwise he may propose something far more stupid such as global missile defense or unversial defense system.

rshowalter - 01:45pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3001 of 3001)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Acknowledging the past would be a lot safer, and much better, than a "Star Wars" that can't be made to work.

If we made peace, the rest of the world could, too.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense