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 - 06:25am May 15, 2001 EST (#3891 of 3896)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Russia, the US, and every other advanced country in the world has a vital interest in getting many things sorted out -- and for the less advanced countries, where so many live so badly, it is necessary for any real advance in productivity -- which is essential for any hope of a better life.

No single gimmick - such as NMD, nor any list of gimmicks anyone could imagine, much less fund, will make anybody very safe, for very long, even if the gimmicks work, until we do some basic things about cooperation and communication better than we're doing them.

Napolean was a monster, but a very good general - who often made effective use of forces at hand. So was Douglas MacArthur a very effective general - and, like him or not, on balance a very good administrator as well. These people, and many others responsible for action, were very clear about a fundamental of good action. They needed to understand their situation, so they could act and that meant that they needed the BAD NEWS related to what they had to deal with CLEARLY and QUICKLY and without evasion. That was essential for them to be as effective as they were. People working to save lives, especially medical people, take similar views when they are effective.

We're getting some "bad news" clarified -- and getting some deep disagreements, both factual and emotional, set out that, probably from every side, contain surprises.

Getting to see the bad news is good news. In the past, a lot of people, all fallible, have sorted a lot of things out -- often gracefully. There's some hope of some of the same about some of this.

Russia has an immense interest in getting some money back, stopping the bleeding, and getting safely integrated into the world economy.

The US has some very good reasons to be afraid - to want to get things sorted out better than they are now -- and that's true, love her or hate her.

We can do better than we're doing --- I'm glad the things that are actually believed are being said -- so that mistakes and imbalances can be adressed, and so that people can get a sense of different points of view.

Yes, I think nuclear disarmament ought to be possible, and might not have to take to long -- but there are a lot of steps that will have to be taken to get there.

Right now, the situation is such a mess that it is possible to do much better -- enough better so that essentially everybody in the world, and everybody with undefeatable veto power, can be much better off.

rshowalter - 06:45am May 15, 2001 EST (#3892 of 3896)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst , I'm working on your specific questions, and comments adressed to me. They are very good ones.

3850: almarst-2001 5/14/01 4:46pm ..... 3853: almarst-2001 5/14/01 5:14pm
3876: almarst-2001 5/14/01 11:52pm

A necessary part of the answer to the questions you ask - an essential thing for any solution I can see that can work well, is better information flows, better feedback, than we have now.

This thread, I believe, is showing something of what might be done for better results -- including showing something of how much staff work closure on some of these problems is going to take.

From a sense of the logical size of the convergence problems involved, we can get a sense of diplomatic feedback procedures that are not going to be able to work. Once we see that, we can think about improving those diplomatic feedback procedures. This thread shows something about how some of that could be done.

lucky085a - 06:45am May 15, 2001 EST (#3893 of 3896)
Baby Bush stole the presidency fair and square.

"Right now, the situation is such a mess that it is possible to do much better "

Or a whole lot worse - with bozo Bush in charge.

rshowalter - 06:45am May 15, 2001 EST (#3894 of 3896)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

FEEDBACK:
3843: rshowalter 5/14/01 3:25pm ... 3844: rshowalter 5/14/01 3:28pm
3846: rshowalter 5/14/01 4:01pm ... 3848: rshowalter 5/14/01 4:12pm

rshowalter - 06:47am May 15, 2001 EST (#3895 of 3896)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

3849: rshowalter 5/14/01 4:15pm .... reads:

To fix this, trust is not the answer, though trust is often useful, and often unavoidable. .........Good will is not the answer -- there is plenty of that around already, and it often misfires -- though we could use more good-will, and less malice. .......... When it matters, we need better checking -- so we can get right answers, even in the absence of good will, or when trust is breached. ...... We have the resources, with reasonable work, to get that checking. .....This thread illustrates some of the things that can now be done.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense