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 - 08:13pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3312 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

When I adressed becq as Clinton, he did not contest it - - nor did a person I've dealt with a good deal, then or later.

rshowalt 9/25/00 3:50pm reads in part:

Now, we've become corrupted, attempting to justify the unjustifiable with evasive words. "Willy_Nilly) #6238, in the favorite poetry forum is an example of how facile, yet dangerous, the logical corruption of nuclear weapons can be.

willy_nilly "Favorite Poetry" 9/23/00 10:43am

When you use the words "threat" and "threaten" in the grossly undefined, multiple meaning way used in this piece - this is what you get ......

" I, the president of the United States, can kill anyone I want, for any reason or no reason, and no one can stop me, or question me, because I can use these genocidal weapons without qualm or fear, and can justify anything at all I wish to, with facile, beautiful sounding words."

It is a brilliant performance, and the logical degeneration in the piece is stunning - because it acts as if first strikes are justifiable, which they are not, and operationally permissable, which they are not. If Clinton were put on a witness stand, with videotape, and a competent lawyer (Gerry Spence might be best) were to walk through the word usages in this passage in context, it would be chilling. The passage is one of the scariest things I've seen, and it is standard, classic U.S. military doctrine.

We may be "the good guys" in most ways, as President Clinton so rightly says. But our military posture is garishly out of kilter with the rest of us, and the rest of the world knows it, and resents it, and we should fix it. Using implicit and semi-explicit threats of first strike nuclear weapon use, long a standard U.S. negotiating tactic, is a kind of psychological warfare that's poisoning the world. And giving us real, motivated enemies who might otherwise be allies or much safer competitors.

If we fixed that, we'd be much better defended than we are today, and we'd have fewer, and less motivated enemies. We need a strong defense, and if you take away the nuclear weapons, we have one. We're a tough, strong, well armed, coordinated people, who know our own businesses well, who work together, and we know how to move fast. Who would dare attack us on our own soil?

What business do we have elsewhere, manufacturing enemies, and paralyzing other people's minds (yes, that's exactly what I mean, especially with respect to the Russians) with Communism dead?

the following passage, I believe, contains the seeds of a really gripping piece of theater.

" If Clinton were put on a witness stand, with videotape, and a competent lawyer (Gerry Spence might be best) were to walk through the word usages in this passage in context, it would be chilling. The passage is one of the scariest things I've seen, and it is standard, classic U.S. military doctrine."

People would leave the theater really wrenched, and anxious to have our country fix this system of world-paralyzing, dangerous mistakes. So that we could sing our countries' proud, powerful songs, with renewed pride.

rshowalter - 08:16pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3313 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

So, if that's in error, I'll admit that I've been misled, and misleading, a long time.

But I think I'm dealing with a "big lie" -- denial of what everybody knows.

The US has refused to renounce first use of nuclear weapons, or even putting conditions on use, for as long as discussions of nuclear weapons have gone on.

I wasn't set up to check this particular point -- which I haven't heard contested before.

So it seems like a good time for me to break, too.

gisterme - 08:26pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3314 of 3326)

A post that rshowalter attributes to becq (whom he presumed to be Bill Clinton):

" Quite true thats why America makes it quite clear and indicates that it will use nuclear weapons if it feels it needs to.

If you presume "will use nuclear weapons if it feels it needs to" means "first strike", then I'll claim another false presumption. Suppose China made that statement. Would you presume that they meant to launch a first strike? Do you think they wouldn't use their nukes if they felt they needed to? Should the US take that as a threat of a first strike from China? By your own logic, it should. So if your logic is correct a BMD to handle 20 or so missiles might be prudent after all.

If I said to you "I'll go on a diet if I need to" would you presume that means "I'll go on a diet whether I need to or not?" Come on Robert, don't glean meanings (that suit your point of view) from statements that have no words to support them.

artemis130 - 08:34pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3315 of 3326)
caveat venditor

Q: Would you agree that if threating first strikes was standard de facto US policy, that would have been wrong -- especially after the fall of the Soviet Union?

What d'ya mean "if". It'd only be a matter of time, like climbing Mt. Everest or messing with the human genome.

Because it's there. (if it is, that is).

artemis130 - 08:44pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3316 of 3326)
caveat venditor

By your own logic, it should. So if your logic is correct a BMD to handle 20 or so missiles might be prudent after all.

A little biddy BMD to handle a paltry 20 missiles? And for that, we need to break a treaty that's worked for ???? years and, let's see if I have this sequence right, goad Russia into MRVing warheads and China into upping ICBM production, which will goad India into the same, which will goad Pakistan into the same, which will eventually vastly increase the likelihood of some Taliban like fanatics launching a nuke at us?

Your logic is like a toilet flush, except it just keeps going 'round & 'round & never disappears.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense