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 - 08:18am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4539 of 4546)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 5/11/01 11:19am

lunarchick - 08:57am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4540 of 4546)
lunarchick@www.com

Interesting that the 'military' lie, with regards to Iraq and later Yugoslavia, people thought that the news was the truth ... only later to find that 'mis-information' had been in over abundance.

An Australian writer Frank Moorehouse took a literary prize this week. His lead female character worked for the then League of Nations. He noted from his research the use of the terms Sanctions with Super-Sanctions by the League, commenting that the same concepts are used today to try to bring nations into line and act in an acceptable manner. These tools of complex negotiation haven't changed.

Ah! but the sanctions are supposed to oust leaders .. yet they don't ... the sanctions entrench leaders ... because the sanctions dominate and create focused hatered against countries imposing them ... clouding regular domestic matters, including democracy.

rshowalter - 09:23am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4541 of 4546)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Human beings have known all the basic patterns of negotiation for thousands of years -- and working among people who act together in good faith, within real animal limits -- negotiations have made humanity possible.

Everything you say about war, and sanctions, and "supersanctions" -- and "auxiliary effects" that swamp the objectives -- is all true, and very very ugly.

We can do better. But to do so takes complex cooperative sequences that are terminated when deceptions are permitted and permitted to stand.

For technical reasons, deceptions are more vulnerable than they used to be, and truth, which for human beings can be no more than what we get when consistency relations are applied again and again, to correct facts and correct models has more of a chance.

If there's a God, that God may know more truth than the "apparent truth condensed from looking at consistency relations" -- but for people - consistency is all we have.

And, for the practical needs of survival, and comofort, all the truth we really need.

rshowalter - 09:55am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4542 of 4546)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A major problem on the far right, in the United States, is that the "entertainment ethic" of talk radio (which was also a common ethic in Nazi germany) has become dominant -- and almost unchallenged. That is -- that it is all right to distort, to evade, to lie, to distract -- to serve any private or emotional purpose.

People who are willing to use such "big lie" tactics - - routinely, "for fun and profit" can have an enormous advantage in discourse, and can do enormous damage, unless they are challenged. To challenge them, usually, one needs an effective memory -- and an ability to handle enough complexity to "pin things down."

There may be limits to the ethic of totally irresponsible lying in Republican politics -- but they have not been very apparent to me in the last few years, and especially in the last few months. In US nuclear policy, they have not been very apparent, ever.

Now, we may be seeing some important changes in that respect -- but what has been said and done - and the consequences, ought not to be forgotten.

rshowalter - 10:05am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4543 of 4546)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I believe that a great deal of the argument in favor of missile defense, including public statements on television, would be subject to substantial criticism -- criticism that would be the more serious, technically and morally, the more background was examined in detail, and the more that statements were considered in detail. http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/missiledefense.html http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/outrage.htm

MD3659 rshowalter 5/10/01 3:22pm

possumdag - 10:32am Jun 7, 2001 EST (#4544 of 4546)
Possumdag@excite.com

It's interesting to note that the media seem less and less able to put a dozen people round a table and run a discussion ... must be a reason why Journos prefer the one-on-one interview .. can it be that they won't work to present complexity ? Do they think that people can only follow the one-on-one?

Or, is it a matter of reduced funding along with changed priorities - even so a studio discussion ought to be inexpensive to run .. and yet be high in informative value.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense