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 - 05:01pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5388 of 5400)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If I made a comment about a picture, it seemed pretty evident to me at the time -- let me go back, and see if I change my view of it. . . . .

I must say, gisterme , that if you're shifting to the rheorical tactics above, you must feel considerable vulnerability on something.

Or that's my initial reaction.

rshowalter - 06:27pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5389 of 5400)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , the passage you object to was in a posting just following MD5282 rshowalter 6/16/01 12:21pm ... , on an issue of substance where we shared interests.

The picture I referred to, in a way you object to, is in Bush Urges Putin to Approve Plans for Missile Shield by FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/16/world/16CND-PREXY.html

I said that the picture shows "Bush in a typically "friendly" awkward-coercive stances, and showing Putin's discomfort and distaste."

Is it the picture that was with the story initially? Perhaps it is, and I was projecting, on the basis of expectations, as all people -- you included, often do.

While I can see why I felt that, I regret having written it where I did. It is a pretty good picture of President Bush, compared to many I've seen, and a worse picture than many I've seen of President Putin. Many of President Bush's stance seem on the bullying side to me -- but perhaps that's a mistake -- I was bothered, for instance, when Bush kissed Oprah Winfrey -- something others seem to have been comfortable with, or approved of. I thought he was imposing on personal space more than he should have been in that case. Perhaps, in this case, he wasn't. It is a bad picture of Putin, and I was expecting feelings such as those almarst has expressed here, both before the picture was taken, and today, afterwards.

I hope you don't disagree that, if I was over-interpreting the photographs of the leaders, I was not misrepresenting salient aspects of the stances of the countries they represented.

Surely the Russians have made it abundantly clear that they are against the missile shield, and the US is using its force to get the Russians to agree with something they really don't want to agree to? There are aspects of "forceful seduction" in that, it would seem to me.

Surely the Russians were uncomfortable with the "courtship" process . . . in terms of everything I knew prior to Bruni's story, and everything in the story itself?

rshowalter - 06:27pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5390 of 5400)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Did you object to what I said in MD5284 rshowalter 6/16/01 2:09pm . . . ?

About 2 1/2 hours later, Bruni filed a piece that I interpreted much more positively -- PUTIN URGES BUSH NOT TO ACT ALONE ON MISSILE SHIELD by FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/world/17PREX.html

I thought results were good, and said so in MD5288-5291, rshowalter 6/16/01 4:44pm quoting Bruni's piece in full, with two comments -- the first on the need for staffing and time, and the second as follows:

"That's as good as could be expected. Much to do, but the possibility of sorting a lot out seems to exist.

"And stances, between Russia, the US, and the other countries in NATO seem conducive to communication.

gisterme - 07:30pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5391 of 5400)

rshowlater wrote: "...I must say, gisterme , that if you're shifting to the rheorical tactics above, you must feel considerable vulnerability on something..."

Not sure what you mean by "rhetorical tactics", Robert. I just said what I meant. There were three questions asked and of those only the last MIGHT be considered to rhetorical. I do suppose that image substitution is a brainwashing technique; if it isn't it should be, and I really do wonder what you mean by "psych war". I'll grant that Dawn probably doesn't need to have what she sees explained to her. :-)

I don't feel any vulnerability because I have nothing to lose. I haven't told any lies so I have nothing to hide. I'm not being disingenuous because I really did laugh myself to tears at your video interpretation comment; it was like some weird "bolt out of the blue" that made a direct hit on my funny bone. :-) To me, that would have been hilarious coming from Letterman, Leno, Cosby or even Jose Jemenez.

I know you try to be serious, Robert. You're the one who periodically tries to stir fear in folks...by sympathizing with the terror you obviously think they should feel, and that you probably do feel yourself, by saying how awful and dangerous the world is...but for me that just winds up amounting to a spooky kind of boogy-man invocation. There's no denying that there is ugliness in the world (to use your word). I suppose that a continual state mutual fear is the whole basis for the MAD paradigm; not to mention all the awful stuff that goes on in Africa, the Balkans and other places; but a continual state of fear is not a healthy condition for humans to exist in, is it? Of course not (that WAS a rhetorical question). Most folks think that they can't do anything about it, so they just don't worry. They've become calloused to the prospect of nuclear annihilation and to those other things.

What's the point of MAD without fear? All the more reason to find a mutually agreeable way to get rid of strategic nuclear weapons. All the old enemies are enemies no more.

I'm with FDR: "All we have to fear is fear itself...".

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense