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 - 03:54pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3919 of 3926)

rshowalter wrote: "...That would have to be negotiated, very carefully -- and the dangers are real -- but it could be made to work -- with agreement of the major parties...."

I'm pleased to agree with almarst on this point, Robert. Evil has no earthly satisfaction greater than causing human suffering. It will lust and strive to fullfill that purpose so long as it is permitted. No matter how sincere the negotiator on the side of reason, negotiation with evil only serves the evil. Images of Neville Chamberlain stepping off an airplane triumphantly waving his non-agression pact with Hitler come to mind as I say that. The proclamation is "Peace in our time!" Right.

So if everybody but the "bad guy" agrees that the guy is bad, what does that accomplish? That's the general consensus about Saddam, but has that hurt him? No! It delights him because he delights in human suffering. He doesn't care WHO is suffering, so long as he can keep it going. The more suffereing he can cause, the happier he is. When such a person can cause no more suffering they dissappear. That's a pattern we should have learned from history.

I think we all agree that there are evil individuals in the world and that they get to be a real problem when they rise to a seat of power.

What we can't seem to solve is what to do about it when that happens. We live in a world where we are all neighbors now. Almost anywhere one lives in the world, information about world-wide events may be as accessable as information about events in one's own neighborhood. It's not like the old days when the world-at-large would know nothing of some atrocity (or great event) until it was long over. Now we're aware of those things while they are happening. That's a BIG difference from the past. It's one thing to do nothing to help when you are ignorant of human suffering, quite another to do nothing when you are aware of it.

So, let's consider Iraq. Nobody thinks that the suffering that sanctions have caused the Iraqi people is deserved by them. Of course, Saddam doesn't care. So what should be done? Nothing? Should Saddam have had a free hand to rape Kuwait and any other neighbors he felt an itch for? Of course not. Should all the people of Iraq be punished for what Saddam wants to do? Of course not. That's the heart of the problem. The evil one hides himself amidst his nation of human shields and delights to see them taking all the hits intended for him.

How do you separate a tyrant from his subjects when it comes to dealing with the tyrant's misdeeds towards those outside his own country?

Since assasination is not an option, are there others? Just let millions suffer because of one evil jerk? Has evil found a safe niche because those who can help lack the resolution to act? Do we starve a million people (some to death) because we have a moral problem with assasination of a single Hitler/Stalin-like leader? Or is the problem that "good guy" leaders fear retribution in kind? Do they fear facing the same danger they send their soldiers to face in battle? Perhaps the perception is "Better to starve the huddled masses than risk one's own prescious flesh to save many". I wonder how different the world would be today if Neville Chamberlain had sacreficed himself to eliminate Hitler in 1939.

We're living in a new kind of world community, unlike any before in history. The old methods don't suit the new neighborhood very well. We need to find methods that take into account the new phenomemnon of instantaneous world-wide awareness.

rshowalter - 04:32pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3920 of 3926)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , that's a wonderful, fascinating, well thought out post. I need to think about it.

We have some disagreements about "evil" and "evil people" -- I think you may be being too simple, at least many times. But you're talking about something real and important.

I especially like the end of your post:

"We're living in a new kind of world community, unlike any before in history. The old methods don't suit the new neighborhood very well. We need to find methods that take into account the new phenomemnon of instantaneous world-wide awareness."

I agree. And we have to find ways to make transitions to those new methods, step by step, that work, understandably and safely, for the real people involved.

Let me go back and get a link about "logical incrementalism," and think about the interesting things you've said.

rshowalter - 04:54pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3921 of 3926)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Logical incrementalism :

(Putin) has to have a team that works well together not according to the standards imitated from another culture, but according to their own standards, judged in terms of the values of the culture itself, and objective imperatives built into socio-technical circumstances.

Peace, if it is to work at all, has to have some essentail core traits that are simple.

1436: rshowalter 3/24/01 1:15pm . . . 1437: rshowalter 3/24/01 1:18pm

rshowalter - 04:55pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3922 of 3926)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The need for repetition, for multiple views, for multiple pieces of evidence, is a central reason why people in interaction exchange such a huge number of words, and is also an essential reason why, regardless of eloquence or logical correctness, there may have to be STAFF WORK to generate enough information to build a case that satisfies and persuades PEOPLE so that they can actually ACT.

1433: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@174.jcohavJGoji^3784761@.f0ce57b/1551 . . . 1434: rshowalter 3/24/01 12:42pm ... 1435: rshowalter 3/24/01 12:50pm

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense