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 wrote: "...And the problems with the system are not
"pure science" problems at all -- the game is all Newtonian
physics...."
Absolutely right, Robert. It's not a "pure science" problem at
all. It's a pure technology problem.
**********
The Bush administration must be disappointed -- but on the other
hand, the degree of communication and focus about nuclear risks and
reducing them may be higher than ever before.
What would it take to get effective prohibition of nuclear
weapons, or much better control?
There are new technical possibilities now, new and broader
possibilities of communication, and the cold war is over.
rshowalter
- 06:49pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3708
of 3725) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
And there are plenty of "pure technology" problems that are
operationally impossible to solve.
applez101
- 06:50pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3709
of 3725)
Bob, I hope you realise that the majority of the postings on this
forum are yours alone. Its unhealthy, go for a stroll.
gisterme
- 06:50pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3710
of 3725)
rshowalter wrote: "...Why we can't convert from "Mutually Assured
Destruction" to "Mutually Assured Deterrance" I don't
understand...."
A rose by any other name is yet a rose, Robert. Why not "Mutually
Assured Defense"?
gisterme
- 06:55pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3711
of 3725)
applez wrote: "...To some extent, the thinking is that Deterrence
needs the full potential of Destruction in order for it to be
viable...."
A chilling point, applez. Why should we continue to support a
paradigm that needs "full potential of destruction" as a
prerequisite to viability?
gisterme
- 06:58pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3712
of 3725)
rshowalter wrote: "...There are new technical possibilities now,
new and broader possibilities of communication, and the cold war is
over..."
Sounds almost like the beginning of a new era, eh Robert?
rshowalter
- 07:00pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3713
of 3725)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
The MISSILE DEFENSE thread would total about nine 1 1/2'
looseleaf notebooks by now. I summarized it, in a way you might find
interesting, and could read quickly, in rshowalter
5/8/01 6:51pm and rshowalter
5/8/01 6:53pm
There are many interesting postings, by people with a sharply
defined and interesting point of view, that are not mine.
gisterme
- 07:06pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3714
of 3725)
rshowalter wrote: "...And there are plenty of "pure technology"
problems that are operationally impossible to solve...."
...but many more that aren't or won't be. For how many hundred
centuries was the wheel too big of a technology problem to solve?
rshowalter
- 07:08pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3715
of 3725)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
gisterme
5/11/01 6:50pm
Why not "Mutually Assured Defense"?
Lots of ways of doing that --- without nukes. With threats and
responses reasonably proportional.
gisterme
5/11/01 6:55pm
" A chilling point, applez. Why should we continue
to support a paradigm that needs "full potential of destruction"
as a prerequisite to viability?
Gisterme, I'm with you on this statement, as far as it goes.
Proportional deterrants, including non-nuclear ones, can work.
gisterme
5/11/01 6:58pm rshowalter wrote about : "... new technical
possibilities now, new and broader possibilities of communication,
and the cold war is over..."
Sounds almost like the beginning of a new era, eh
Robert?
Yes, and we need to be sure that it is a better era. Looks
like it can be, but we could screw up badly -- and can't afford to.
(10
following messages)
![[F]](../_images/site.gif)
New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science
Missile Defense
