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?

lunarchick - 11:42pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5252 of 5260)
lunarchick@www.com

even The Shield of Achilles had a weak spot

possumdag - 07:13am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5253 of 5260)
Possumdag@excite.com

Little leaguer meets black belt.

rshowalter - 08:33am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5254 of 5260)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Closed Mind by ANTHONY LEWIS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/16/opinion/16LEWI.html seems very important to me, and useful. Politicians can only move at a certain speed, and must carry their supporters with them, so whether the piece is exactly fair, or off the point, depends on facts that cannot, so far as I can tell, be known. Even so, I believe Lewis's piece is worth copying here, with one comment.

"That President Bush has been telling European leaders this week can be readily summed up: I am not going to do anything about global warming because it needs more scientific study. But I am going to act urgently to develop a missile defense system although none have any proven scientific basis and every test so far has failed.

"In that odd couple of messages the allies got a fair introduction to the veritable George W. Bush: a man of strong opinions stubbornly held, in defiance of reason as most Europeans would define it. They also saw a man of charm, easy in human relations and adept politically, but with a certitude not earned by experience or accomplishment.

""I hope the notion of a unilateral approach died in some people's minds here today," Mr. Bush said after talking with NATO leaders about his missile defense project. "Unilateralists don't come around the table to listen to others and to share opinion."

Personal Comment: Hitler did just this on a number of occasions - he sat around tables to listen to others and share opinion -and sometimes he could be a very charming, conciliatory listener indeed. And the same can be said of practically any politician who has been successful at all - anytime in the last half century.

"Yes, Mr. Bush listened — but only with the ear, not with a mind open to other ideas. No one sitting around that NATO table could have had any illusion of being able to persuade him that it is folly to abandon the most important barrier against a renewed nuclear arms race, the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, so he can pursue the will-o'-the-wisp of missile defense.

(more)

rshowalter - 08:38am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5255 of 5260)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"There is a rigidity in George W. Bush, verging on arrogance, that Americans have seen on a number of issues in his first five months as president. A striking example is his attitude on the environment.

"He began by having his environment administrator, Christie Whitman — to her evident embarrassment — withdraw a Clinton administration rule limiting the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Then his secretary of agriculture, Ann M. Veneman, suspended a regulation banning roads in many roadless areas of our national forests.

" Those and other moves brought an outcry from Americans who want to protect our natural surroundings — and protect themselves from dangerous substances. Many of those who worried were in the suburban districts that voted for Mr. Bush.

"The president reacted to the political problem by putting on a show of concern for the environment. He traveled to the Everglades. He posed amid Sequoia trees in California.

" But his real position on the environment has not changed at all. In the Sequoia appearance he said the federal government must show more deference to states and private groups in conservation efforts — which is code for scuttling federal enforcement.

" In recent weeks there have been other anti-environment moves. The Army Corps of Engineers proposed relaxing rules against the destruction of wetlands. The Forest Service issued draft regulations that would eliminate the priority for ecological sustainability in forest use plans.

"The administration announced that it would, after all, support the Clinton plan for roadless forest areas. But it quietly made a crucial concession in court to timber and other interests that had sued against the plan: It conceded that they would suffer irreparable injury from it.

"In short, the emollient Bush words about loving the environment did not match the reality of the administration's destructive actions. Mr. Bush's position is still based on a simple proposition: What is good for drillers and developers is good for the country. That same fixed preference for business now over the health of future generations underlay his denunciation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

"A single proposition also underlies Mr. Bush's determination to destroy the ABM treaty. He does not believe in treaties limiting weapons of mass destruction, even though they have manifestly worked well, because they limit our freedom of action — as if somehow mutual security diminished American manhood. .

"That is the president the European leaders met. Most, though disagreeing, treated him deferentially. For the last 50 years, European politicians have always cozied up to American presidents. They simply feel too dependent for their security on the dominant member of the alliance.

"But European military experts, environmentalists and many ordinary citizens are not so polite. They are frightened of George W. Bush.

______

If Bush is being fairly treated by Lewis here, and that seems to me to be one fair interpretation of all the circumstances, though not the only one, then NATO as an alliance is going to be reduced to a husk -- because the ideas and ideals on which NATO has been based will have been shown to be a mockery.

It is possible that Lewis, though he makes a reasonable interpretation, will turn out to be wrong, and there will be some very good consequences from the marked disequilibration of the status quo the Bush administration has produced.

Time will tell.

There is NO reason to trust, on these issues, except in the sense of "trusting what can be checked."

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense