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 - 01:34pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3655 of 3659)

almarst wrote: "...Please chose either "real politics" or morality and stop pretending they can coexist. They can't if even the absolute superpower like the US can't afford the morality in its actions..."

As much as I prefer agreement to disagreement, I must disagree with your pessimism, almarst. While I do agree that the concept of morality and "real politics" may not be able to co-exsist, that's because I believe the two are already inserperable. Notice that I didn't say "should be" but rather "are". I don't take "morality" here to mean the specific beliefs of any particular political faction or religious sect...after some honest reflection, I'd say a gool baseline for morality would be the golden rule...gisterme paraphrase: "Care for and treat your neighbor as you would like to be cared for and treated yourself...even if your neighbor doesn't do it first." Robert periodically mentions his desire for graceful solutions...well, there's a paradigm that is full of grace.

I'll grant that supporting examples from history are more scarce than fish-sweat, but no less common than pre-1902 historical examples of men flying. The point is, just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

The world IS transiting a nexus between two ages. The age of empire by military conquest/occupation is over. We need to discover a new paradigm, one where the concept of "co-existance" is replaced by "friendly companionship". In order to accomplish that we must abandon the old "tit-for-tat" paradigm of the passing age. A new paradigm, whatever it may be, for better or for worse, will determine the flavor of the next age in human history. I can't help but think that if God were to judge the nations of the world today, the result would be: "None are found righteous, no not one."

If you feel that the inertia behind paradigm of the last age is so great that it cannot be overcome then what's the point of any conversation like this? I'm sorry I haven't had time to read all your previous posts, almarst, but from what I've read I know that you're no dummy. Why would we be spending time on this if there were not SOME hope? I prefer to take the existance of dialog like this to be evidence that there should be GREAT hope. The possiblity/existance of this kind of public dialog is what has been missing from history in all previous eras. Doesn't that seem like a significant difference to you?

rshowalter - 02:03pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3656 of 3659)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I owe both gisterme and almarst some responses. For my part, I think that morality and realpolitics HAVE to be compatible -- but it takes work to see that they are -- including some work still to be done.

Speaking personally, some of the impasses on this thread are wrenching my guts, making me dispair, but then, I step back and think

"this is going fine - people are talking, disagreements are being set out rather than evaded, there's time for closure, and, after all, we don't have to end up liking each other. Or liking what's happened. It should suffice, for a while, if we can keep from killing each other, and learn to coexist and cooperate in productive ways.

I think all involved here are working toward that.

Also, there's a rather slow pace at which physical development of missile defense can even concievably occur -- there's a good deal of time for talking and accomodation. The very next vote in the US Congress or the Duma isn't going to finally decide how things turn out. Though those votes matter.

gisterme - 02:31pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3657 of 3659)

rshowalter, from a quote (#3654)"...This concept, known as mutually assured destruction, would be called into question is we reduce our nuclear forces below the 2,500 warhead level. In fact, strategic stability may tip in favor of Russia if we move forward with the reductions ..."

Thanks for the timely posting of this perfect example of the kind of "past age" thinking that seems to counter-productive.

The cold war is over. Russia is NOT the enemy of the US. The US is NOT the enemy of Russia. Neither wants to conquer or destroy the other. Look at the rationale presented in the refereneced statement..."strategic stability may tip in favor of Russia...". The expected western response of the past age would be "Oh my God! We can't allow that!", but haven't the times changed? Hasn't the world situation changed? Why shouldn't the new age response be "So what? If they want to maintain a bunch of expensive nukes that they know they can't use why should that bother us? They are not our enemies, they are not trying to conquer us. They are not trying to create an empire by conquest. Maybe they will see this reduction of warheads as a token of honest good will and follow suit themselves".

Perhaps by adaption of a more enlightened attitued like that the necesary "moment of grace" could be reached and the perception of need for a BMD would dissipate.

Almarst asked me if I'd feel safer behind a BMD. To answer your question, almarst, I would feel safer behind a missile shield, not because I fear being "nuked" now but because I'd know that it was tending toward the reduction or elimination of strategic nuclear weapons. I have far more personal fear of an accident or that "conspiracy of one or two" that was pointed out earler. The tradgedy that could result from either case is just the sort of thing that MIGHT REALLY BE PREVENTED by the presence of a BMD. Also, I'd consider that a BMD that could destroy a missle during its launch phase could serve to protect the world from a launch due to accident or conspiracy, whatever the origin of the missile might be...even the US.

No BMD likely to be built would protect the US from a full-on Russian attack. Fortunately for me, I don't feel threatened by the Russians anyway, since "nuclear attack by any legitimate nation" fell off the bottom of gisterme's list of likely scenarios some time back. I don't see why the Russians should be intimidated by a US BMD that would constrain them to anihilating the the US five-times-over rather than ten.

Out till later...

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense