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 - 05:09pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4207 of 4213)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There's an abyss of incomprehension, going both ways, it is very destructive, and one thing that has to happen is that the communication skills, on both sides, have to get better in interaction.

But in addition to technique, I believe that there has to be a fundamental change -- that is, that basic facts have to be determined, have to be common ground.

The US has been grossly more agressive than it has admitted to. That has stood in the way of progress again and again. And if the US is saying "trust us" now -- it has to take some steps to earn trust. The trend, in the last few months, is that the US has gotten less trusted, by most governments of the world.

You asked a key question, that I haven't answered explicitly -- you asked:

" What evidence can you present that the Bush administration has made any such assumption, that "international cooperation can't work"?

I can't judge the assumption -- and a many-headed organization, such as the executive branch, may have not consensus on the point. Talk surely makes sense as an avenue to pursue. I'm glad to hear you're talking. But my impression, and it is not an uncommon one, is that "my way or the highway" has been a watchword of this administration. Almarst surely thinks so. It seems to me that he has some reasons to feel so.

One thing that strikes me is that you've discussed the past as if "its a war" justifies everything. Even when the war is not declared - and not acknowledged among the parties -- even when there is simultaneous rhetoric about peacefulness. I've been stunned by your callousness.

Dealing with much of the rest of the world, the US has to start from there -- from where it is . Have you noticed how angry and indignant almarst is? Not without some good reasons.

You can't just brush off that history, wave your hands, and say "let's be friends."

Especially so, when taking the position that the US is taking about war crimes -- which is, essentially, that Americans can't commit them.

rshowalter - 05:23pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4208 of 4213)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

possumdag 5/25/01 4:58pm

" The reality for the people of Yugoslavia is (as posted way above) they really did not know what was overtaking them, happening, or why. . . .

" Perhaps patterns of emergent 'war' need to be worked out, and the fixing done and understood without bombs and carnage. "

My experience is that when people are angry at each other, for any reason, and disagreeing about key facts -- fighting is a distinct possibility.

That means that one way to provoke a fight is to lie.

Fact finding - about the facts where passions are running -- seems to me to be the primordial - the most basic, task of peacemaking. Not the only one, of course. But fundamental - and the place where intractable problems most often occur.

rshowalter - 05:45pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4209 of 4213)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It seems to me that internet usages (perhaps with some crowd control, but in the open, and adequately staffed ) offer sensationally effective means of getting facts straight. And getting differences clear.

rshowalter - 06:04pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4210 of 4213)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

SN1342: markk46b "Science in the News" 8/23/00 2:44am ... SN1343: rshowalt "Science in the News" 8/23/00 7:31am
" ....there's a phrase that I read once. Three words.

" Hitler went unchecked. "

The context was political and military. But facts and ideas went unchecked too. Hitler subverted an entire society based on nonsense and lies, many ornately detailed, and destroyed much of the world in doing so. He hoped, in the senses that matter to most of us, to destroy the whole world. In the ways that mattered, he wasn't effectively checked at the level of ideas.

In the preface to Brecht's Galileo , there's something like this.

" It takes courage to face the fact that sometimes the truth is defeated because the truth is, somehow, too weak."

I find the idea that truth can be "somehow, too weak" haunting.

We need techniques and conventions that make it stronger.

rshowalter - 06:05pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4211 of 4213)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Notions of responsibility could be clarified, too: SN1422: rshowalter "Science in the News" 8/29/00 7:26am ....
And expository poem: SN1423- 1426

SN1427: rshowalter "Science in the News" 8/29/00 8:03am

" Scientific evidence, combined with other evidence and persuasive work, may in the future help establish this truth, which has been, somehow, too weak, on a firmer basis than has been done so far. "

- - -

In the particular context, at a time when my humanity was in doubt, I personally much appreciated comments 1431: pgunkel1 "Science in the News" 8/29/00 10:45pm ... and 1432: analytech_1981 "Science in the News" 8/30/00 12:00am

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense