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 - 12:28pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3836 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We aren't angels - and the past is as ugly as it is. But the worst doesn't always happen, and a lot of times, people manage to work things out fairly well.

After time, conversation, clarification, and accomodation, the proposal I made on September 25 still looks like a good solution to me, or at least a suggestion that might be considered as people search for a good solution.
266: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am ... 267: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:33am
268: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:35am
I feel the approach has ceremonial and artistic aspects that should be universally understandable, by people of all ages, that fit the case.

In this situation, that's a plus.

The key good thing about the suggestion, I feel, is that it assumes distrust , and works on the basis of that fact, not asking nation states to risk their survival, under circumstances of stark terror, on the fiction of "trust."

I think that a person who actually looked at Rehearsing Doomsday http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html might find the need to acknowledge distrust especially compelling.

We need to make peace. The risks of nuclear distruction have to be much, much less than they now are. We have to do the best we can as the human animals we are, here and now.

lucky085a - 12:44pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3837 of 3844)
Baby Bush stole the presidency fair and square.

"The risks of nuclear distruction have to be much, much less than they now ar"

Unfortunately, Bush's agenda can only make things much worse. He is increasing world instability by refusing to cooperate with anyone - a sure road to world crisis somewhere down the pike.

rshowalter - 12:49pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3838 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You never can tell, in the middle of negotiations, exactly what a guy might be doing -- especially among "negotiating lawyers" like Clinton, and some republicans, as well.

But I must say, right now, on the surface, it looks like he's "refusing to cooperate."

But if the world gets a bit organized, that might change.

almarst-2001 - 12:52pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3839 of 3844)

Robert,

As I mentioned before, the nuclear wearpons and the MAD deterrance may be the only hope of any country not ready to submit to US or being treated like Yugoslavia or Iraq.

Do you have any dought the Moscow would be bombed just like Belgrad a long time ago, if not for the MAD?

What assurances can anyone have in a current state of the conventional ballance of power and the way, the Washington politics works?

rshowalter - 12:58pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3840 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You need, and under current conditions, can readily fashion, effective non-nuclear deterrants -- especially if countries band together (for this purpose, against the US) to set and enforce some rules.

In the ways that have to matter, you shouldn't be asked to "trust" -- and you raise absolutely valid points.

But I think, with a little coordination and international action that can work, a balanced military situation that is sustainable can be set up -- and that it would be in the interest of all concerned -- emphatically including both Russia and the United States.

Let me take an hour and organize some things.

One point's clear. It should be expensive to America when the US military kills people --- especially when it kills "innocent bystanders."

I don't think that would be hard to arrange, either.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense