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 - 04:07pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5897 of 5899)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4643 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:00am reads:

After MD3353 rshowalter 5/6/01 10:55am .... MD3354 rshowalter 5/6/01 10:56am
and a short comment from gisterme , almarstel_2001 reappeared, after an absence.

almarstel_2001 , this forum's "Vladimr Putin stand-in" has made the following postings since that time. If a person samples the many posts in these linked directories, at random, I think that person would be impressed at the intellectual quality, and the quantity, of almarstel_2001's attention to this thread.

MD4644 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:15am . . here are the DIRECTORIES of almarstel's numerous and distinguished postings set out in Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (1-9)

Directory-linked lists of distinguished efforts, usually long postings, sometimes interesting references, by almarst_2001: MD4645 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@184.YfYcaXLfqqt^2221872@.f0ce57b/4961... MD4646 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:20am
MD4647 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:20am ... MD4648 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:21am
MD4649 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:22am ... MD4650 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:22am

And a change-clarification in negotiating position in MD4651 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:32am

There's been much work since.

Dialog by almarst indicates what statements by Putin also indicate -- that issues of military balance are of great concern - - that Russia does not trust the benevolence of the United States, for reasons almarst states, with solid supporting reasons, again and again.

almarst , isn't necessarily, and in every way, against anti-missile technology. He's against grossly disproportionate military balances, and dangerous concealment of information flows, that, in his view, threaten the security of Russia.

rshowalter - 04:08pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5898 of 5899)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Other nations, almarst says, have similar concerns, and looking at almarst's arguments and supporting references, it is hard not to believe that.

rshowalter - 04:16pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5899 of 5899)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

One way of getting a sense of those concerns, in my view, is to search "gisterme" and read what he says, in context, from the top. gisterme surely wants nukes down, as I do and as almarst does, too.

But gisterme shows an agressiveness, and an indifference to human suffering or death, when that suffering or dying involves human beings who are not Americans.

Sometimes, that suffering doesn't seem to count at all, nor any ordinary morality either, so long as the people involved can be classified as "enemies" -- in "war" -- according to a logic that, in Friedman's phrase, can make Machiavelli seem like one of the Sisters of Mercy.

That attitude , which does still characterize a great deal about US military policy, now as in the past -- is the primary impediment to military accomodations, nuclear and otherwise, including missile defense.

Adress the concerns almarst raises, and a deal on missile defense (if it were really needed) would be relatively easy to strike.

With those concerns not effectively adressed, there is impasse, and we are heading into a new arms race.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense