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 - 06:24pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3927 of 3935)

rshowalter wrote: "...I think you may be being too simple [about evil]..."

Very intentionally so Robert. Only trying to focus on the highest level as a concept rather than getting into "degrees". That wouldn't be constructive to this point.

rshowalter - 06:31pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3928 of 3935)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Will do.

We need a concept clear enough to be discussed -- and simple.

I've a posting on a suggestion for staffing -- that I felt forced to think about dealing with almarst's really basic concerns about invasion of Russia -- let me post it and get back to you, pretty quickly thereafter, on "evil."

(posting now).

rshowalter - 06:32pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3929 of 3935)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Sometimes, when there are too many details, one needs collaboration, and staffing.

Proposal for a "dry run" for moving toward nuclear disarmament and more stable military balances:

Preparation of a "mock" "proposal for discussion and comment" for Russian, American, and other governments, with journalists from a number of organizations in several countries doing much or most of the staffing, with others involved insofar as possible. The proposed work would be a diplomatic "dry run" and a journalistic special project for publication.

Collaboration would be done, in large part, using the internet techniques used here and elsewhere --supplemented in any ways convenient.

Plainly, this might seem like "play acting" -- but it would serve a quite practical purpose -- getting the needs of disarmament coherent enough to pursue. With enough staff, and enough flexibility, to get bases covered, on a "dry run" basis where mistakes could be made and unmade.

955: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:14pm .... 956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm
958: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:36pm .... 960: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:47pm
961: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:47pm .... 962: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:51pm
963: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:55pm

gisterme - 06:33pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3930 of 3935)

rshowalter wrote: "...We need a way of accounting for human costs -- we can't just set the suffering and death of the many aside, because of prohibitions that seem sensible on the basis of some old, crude experience...."

Well said, Robert. How do we do that? What do we mean when we say "human cost"? What would the units be? That's a serious question.

rshowalter - 06:34pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3931 of 3935)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The proposal was discussed again at later times, because the format has continued to make sense to me
from 1041: rshowalter 3/15/01 4:18pm
from 1441: rshowalter 3/24/01 2:01pm
from 1633: rshowalter 3/28/01 4:31pm
from 1840: rshowalter 3/31/01 3:23pm
from 2008: rshowalter 4/5/01 2:15pm
from 2064: rshowalter 4/6/01 1:42pm
from 2916: rshowalter 5/1/01 5:59pm

"There may be "many different points of view" but on key facts, there are many fewer when people are using their real names, the statements are public, and impartial people can be asked to judge facts that are in dispute. 2009: rshowalter 4/5/01 2:17pm

2917: rshowalter 5/1/01 6:05pm ... :
"At the level of diplomacy, where it is sometimes a matter of great moment when somebody gives somebody else a phone call, complex things may never close at all. There just isn't enough discussion and fact gathering for convergence.

"To get some of our military problems sorted out may take a great deal of talking.

"One intention of this thread has been to provide a model of what might be involved, that could be a point of departure. . . . What is being claimed is that the logic of the process, and the facts set out and focused, can be constructive.

rshowalter - 06:36pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3932 of 3935)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I wouldn't mind a money accounting, for starters, crass as that may seem. It would be CONSIDERABLY better than nothing.

For instance, this would be crude, but might be a useful discipline:

One dead "innocent bystander" -- a specific fee to a UN fund.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense