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 - 01:49pm May 21, 2001 EST (#4115 of 4118)

There are no new frontiers in a territorial sense. The fuel for the old race between empires is now expended. All the old racers hit the wall during WWII and the dust is finally settling after that cataclysmic crash. We're in a new era."

almarst wrote: "...I only wonder if you sencirelly believe what you say..."

I do, almarst. What was said is more of an observation of a true difference in conditions than a matter of faith isn't it?. Conditions really are different. The other thing I honestly believe is that nobody including the US has a clue about what to do now or quite how to act in this new environment. There are new challenges (or anceint ones revived) but few can be solved by force. Most of those components of turmoil you listed can only be solved by acts grace, something that can only occur between the parties involved. We need to learn think in new ways to adapt to the new situation. Fortunately, adaptation is one of the strong points of our species. :-)

rshowalter - 02:12pm May 21, 2001 EST (#4116 of 4118)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I had a VERY encouraging trip, from that perspective. The people at the meeting were really animals. Admirable animals. And they had a proper pride -- but they knew they were animals, too. They had fears as well as hopes. They were inclinded to peace in part because they had a sense of risks. And they were, and are, in significant ways, extremely good negotiators. Not without their limits. But there's plenty to hope for.

One thing is clear. Got clearer in the course of the meeting.

We have limits in discourse techniques - so that things that need to get to closure, haven't. Now odds are better that they can.

(I also left that meeting feeling, as I had before, that the code of the brain was in breakable condition -- and that tools were coming into shape for doing it. Including discourse tools, some being focused in forums like this one.)

Peace ain't going to be easy - but it does look technically and emotionally possible.

Back in a while . . .

gisterme - 03:32pm May 21, 2001 EST (#4117 of 4118)

possumdag wrote:

"A point to remember about Nations is that they are not in a closed loop. Most Nations are a composite of ALL Nations.

So, what is under discussion is really the mood of a culture and its leadership.

When does 'war' occur.

Anyone got the 10 points that are indicators of lead in to war, and 10 that are stability/continued peace.

Perhaps this is the important list to compile and comprehend. "

Great observation possumdag. Those are the kinds of questions that might lead us to new ways of looking at our world.

When you say "So what we're looking at is really the mood of a culture and its leadership" you've hit the nail right on the head. But it is now a WORLD culture we need to be looking at. It must be an integration of national cultures. How can diverse cultures live side-by-side without the need for "final resolution" of cultural differences as a prerequesite to peaceful coexistance? That seems to be the fundamental question. What is it that I fear, if my neighbor doesn't think or act just like me and mine?

You know, your first statement about nations not being in a closed loop, is quit thought provoking for me. It seems to sum up in a techical way what I was trying to say before about the end of the age of empire. When developed nations had a wide-open world full of undeveloped nations as potential targets for empire, wouldn't that be the inherently unstable "open loop" situation? Now that it's almost impossible for one nation do do anything without affecting the other nations of the world, doesn't that seem more like a "closed loop" situation? Isn't feedback path that is closing that loop instantaneous worldwide communication?

rshowalter - 04:20pm May 21, 2001 EST (#4118 of 4118)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Better communication gives people at a distance, and with more complicated interactions, a chance to resolve their problems in the same sort of ways as people close together, and in simpler interactions, have always solved THEIR problems.

With the same sorts of difficulties - and the same need for effort, and balancing of interests, that real human accomodations take.

And, as usual, each side has to take account of all interests involved, but must ESPECIALLY

"mind his own business."

Usually, people contrive not to kill each other under these "up close and personal" circumstances. And even on the rare occasions when murder occurs, body counts are usually moderate.

It ought to be possible now to achieve this same moderate level of peace and justice among nations, at least most of the time.

Things that NEVER make sense, such a nukes, we should be able to either get rid of, or limit to the point where the risks from them are small.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense