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 - 07:59am May 10, 2001 EST (#3647 of 3654)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Just a thought -- if missile defense could be funded, at the level Congressman Weldon and advocates argue for, and watched carefully by the whole world -- it might be a great thing. (Though I'd prefer some other ways.) Still, it might be a great thing, because is would make some things clear.

It would show, clearly, how near to the "end of the road" we are, if we are looking for satisfactory military solutions to our problems.

There aren't any.

We could all die. Or a lot of us, anyway, in very ugly ways, for nothing remotely resembling sufficient reasons.

With little to gain, and nothing solid to hope for, if we keep going on with escalatory military projects. No matter how well intended in their own terms.

We need to make peace. And, it seems to me, we've made something of a start.

possumdag - 08:49am May 10, 2001 EST (#3648 of 3654)
Possumdag@excite.com

After bad times and war crisis, a playwrite said, people need to forgive and move on, for the only people we have on earth are 'each other'.

Yet after the worst of modernwarfare would even 'each other' be around ?

There definately needs to be a new way of thinking created.

rshowalter - 09:37am May 10, 2001 EST (#3649 of 3654)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Old ways of thinking, that we all know, and that everyone we respect has always known -- need to be sharpened, in a few spots, so that at one level it may be "new thinking" -- at another level -- just remembering some of the most useful things we know.

If we can sweep some lies and deceptions away, and take advantage of new opportunities, we could get a lot better security for the world than missile defense could ever do, and we'd all feel much better.

People are animals. Whether you happen to be entirely secular, or have some religious feelings, the following phrase fits:

We are all

"A little lower than the angels."

If we stopped trying to play God with each other, stopped treating leaders like they were Gods, and stopped being so prepared to be destroying Gods to people who we'd find reason to care about, if we got to know them - - - we could do much better as the human animals that we are.

Wars are misfires of human patterns -- and we have enough tools at hand now that we can get past most of the things that make for wars, and predatory human inter-relations.

If we stop pretending we're more than we are, or different -- and stop dehumanizing others. We should treat other people, consider other people, for what they are. Animals. Just as we are.

Life could be a whole lot more comfortable, and all the human and humane values would have more chance, if we could do that.

And "justifiable" homicide would be much rarer.

rshowalter - 10:55am May 10, 2001 EST (#3650 of 3654)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm swamped today, but I will take time to call the office of Curt Weldon, MC. and see if I can get a transcript, or more information about the interesting and largely well intentioned people on his

Congressional News Conference National Missile Defense U.S. Capitol Washington, District of Columbia (United States)

Broadcast yesterday on Cspan, ...ID: 164151 - 05/09/2001 - 1:12 - $45.00

I wish it were possible to webcast that news conference. It might be a reasonable thing to do. ( It would cost some digitizing work, plus something like $50/month for a streaming media facility. ) I think it would be interesting for people, all over the world, to be able to see what was said, and how it was said -- and remember what happened, in case there are disagreements.

It would make clear how little missile defense is being offered, if it works at all, after 3-10 more years, and 60+ billion dollars. People considering that might be more concerned about the money waste than before -- but less concerned about destabilization due to the technical factors themselves.

The case made by the "Safe Foundation" people at the conference might indeed be true. -- They said that in 3-10 years, there might, if things went very well, be a reasonable chance of hitting most, though perhaps not all, of 3-8 nonmirved ICBMs, shot at the US with some sort of warning, if the missiles were "primative" and did not employ decoys.

I may have to apologize, if they feel that I said this was impossible. It is not significant security for the United States, in my opinion, but this level of missile defense, at this cost, might be possible. But very difficult -- and with easy changes in assumptions about the threat -- impossibly difficult.

Some opinions expressed, however, seemed less convincing to me. One, that only "left wingers" and the "left wing press" object to missile defense as now proposed. Another opinion was that decoys were "hard to make" and "easy to detect" -- and at another point, that decoying itself was "science fiction."

A point that several people were at pains to make clear was this -- at least so far as anybody could forsee, they only hoped to be able to intercept "primative" missiles, from primative "rogue states."

The internet offers new possibilities for extending human memory, and human ability to handle complexity. That means issues that could not "close" now, can be expected to converge to closure. But for that, the memory has to be available, and used.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense