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 - 09:33pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3317 of 3326)

reshowalter wrote (3312), WRT the "willie nillie" post: "...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...."

I can't believe the abstract summary and conclusion you present from the "willy nilly" post is not a mistake. You must have written that abstract for some other post. The "willy nilly" post doesn't say anything like you say it does.

Wouldn't you think I'd goofed if I proclaimed, "Robert said that 'The systematic destruction of the logic of my arguements in this piece is stunning'"? And then I used that to draw a couple of false conslusions, as you do in the second sentence of the included reference?

All that's REALLY said by "willy nilly" is that the US would use nuclear weapons to defend itself only after convetional means had failed. That's nothing new. That's been the consistant US policy. Wouldn't Britain, France, China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India or Pakistan do the same? How you reached your wacky conclusion that "first strike" is US policy from that "willy nilly" post is a mystery to me. Finally, even if the "willy nilly" post DID say what YOU say it does, why would anybody accept an anonymous post on a public forum as an official statement of US policy. That would be absured.

If you want to present some evidence in this debate, I welcome it; but please play fair and let the presentation stand on its own merit. Don't present a distortion that suits your needs. It's damaging to your credibility, Robert.

So far your're not making much progress in showing any sort of public record that says "first strike" has ever been a part of US nuclear policy since WWII. Why should anybody accept a huge volume of words as a substitute for evidence?

Finally I'll ask, why would any nation set a policy and then not carry it out? If "first strike" were US policy then why was there never a first strike?

gisterme - 10:17pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3318 of 3326)

artemis130 wrote: "...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?"

At least you are presenting an arguement and reasoning that's honest and has some merit artemis.

1. We don't need to break the treaty. Negotiation is going on with the Russians now about that. If what I've read on this board is true, then the US is authorized under that treaty to build two BMD sites within the limits of the treaty. The Russians did build and still have them. The US built their Sentinal system, a single site but later dismantled it, in the mid '70's I think. Also the treaty allows withdrawal by either side with 6 months notice. "Withdrawing from" and "breaking" are two different things in that case.

2. Russia has had MIRV'd ICBMs for years. That's public knowledge. The cold war is over. The USSR no longer exists. Whatever our differences may be, Russia and the US are not enemies any longer.

3. The "domino effect" arguement makes no more sense to me in this debate than it did when President Johnson and that weasel Macnamara used it to justify the Vietnam War. Remember? They said in effect "If we allow South Vietnam to fall to "commonism", all the other south east asia countries would follow suit; therefore we should defend South Vietnam. Do you think that was a valid arguement then?

gisterme - 11:25pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3319 of 3326)

rshowalter wrote: 1. "...If one assume that gisterme has some rank in the Bush administation (especially if this could be proved) the exchange would make especially interesting reading...

and

2..."We you ever, by chance, a Congressman?"

and

3..."And tactics by American officials, similar in some ways to yourself, that systematically and intentionally cut off any possibility of discussion, compromise, or focusing to a solution."

I PRESUME that last was meant for me.

1. Robert, you flatter me. I'm not even a US government employee, let alone some ranking official in the Bush administration. The only reason that I'm telling you this is because you took sombody else's lack of denial (willy nilly it think) as evidence of the corrctness for your assumption he was the Prez. After seeing what he said and what you SAID he said I'd like to be sure I don't get misrepresented. If I didn't clear this up for you, I fear I'd be seeing posts from you saying that my opinins are from the Bush administraion.

2. Nope.

3. I am systematically and intentionally (and sincerely I might add) debating with you about this, responding as best I can to the rationale you've been tossing out. If you feel that we cannot compromise or try to focus to a solution, all you should take that to mean is that you're losing the debate. I don't feel at all that compromise or focus are out of the question. I don't know what you mean when you say "cut off from any possibility of discussion". I thought we WERE discussing. I've presented my arguements to your points, calmly, fairly and truthfully. If you think those are unfair or untruthful, then say so, but also explain why. I've already told you I'll gladly retract what I've said if you show me why I'm wrong via a fair arguement. I just can't agree to your controversial and undocumented claims about US nuclear policy. Is it unfair of me to ask you to back up your claims with some documentation that's not based solely on your presumptions? You're the one that seems to have a fixation on "checking" so why does it bother you when I'M the one wanting evidence to check YOUR claims.

I'm willing to give up any point I've tried to make if you prove it wrong. You won't see me complaining about being "cut off from any possibility of discussion, compromise or focus to a solution" just because I can't rationally respond to your reasoning.

As you've noticed before, Robert, we do have a lot of common ground. We both want to find a way to "no nukes in the world".

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense