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 - 05:00pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6071 of 6076)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD5551rshowalter 6/20/01 1:59pm .... MD5552 rshowalter 6/20/01 1:59pm

almarst-2001 - 05:03pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6072 of 6076)

On mistakes.

The stand opposing the Dirac and Gisterme, assumes that most of the people of this planet are non agressive and do not inherently criminal.

It is my believe the rulling elite of many nations uses the conflicts and criminal agressions to promote their own personal interests and the interests of their clique. And they are using all sorts of ideology, including religion, to inflame the hatered. And the less the ordinary people know the declared "enemy", the easier it is to do. And the futher away those "enemies" live - the less they are known. In this respect - the almost universal lack of knowlege and interest in the foreign afairs and history and culture of other nations - the US presents a particularelly fertile ground for such a behavier.

I can accept it is my mistake to see it this way. If I am wrong, we can expect an unprovoked suicidal missile attack. And, as such, from ANY direction.

But equally Dirac and the Gisterme should at least try to present the coherent phylosophy supporting their point of view, calculate the chance of their mistake and assume some responsibility for the probable result.

rshowalter - 05:14pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6073 of 6076)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That seems fair -- and sometimes -- it takes some bookeeping -- even some umpiring. Particularly a listing of what is asserted, and how the assertion is supported.

If, too often, the support for assertions is simply

"because we say so -- and you can't check us"

that is a problem.

rshowalter - 05:17pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6074 of 6076)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For instance, there were some very well formed and balanced questions set out by US Senators in

Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense By JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html

Is there an obligation for clear, and sufficiently followed-up answers to these questions?

Now, I think the answer is no.

The answer, I believe, should be yes.

rshowalter - 05:22pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6075 of 6076)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6062 rshowalter 6/26/01 3:48pm ..... reads in part:

Q: is there any objection to checking what the capabilities of equipment in the open literature are? -- Checking so that we can say -- on a clearly traceable basis

. If the DOD classified labs are to do this thing -- within the framework of what they've publicly disclosed -- then they have to deal with these specific, specifiable problems.

If that is permissable -- then discussions of the credibility of classified claims can be done, in a free society -- and in a way such that -- when questions of fraud reasonably arise, they can be dealt with.

These claims need to be dealt with, after so many questions have been raised about the sanity and motivation of missile defense.

rshowalter - 05:25pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6076 of 6076)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The core problems of misinformation -- and bad, predatory decisions that come from that -- are problems all over the world. We can deal with them, a piece at a time, if we remember that people have to solve their own problems, and, to have a decent chance of doing so, they have to make decisions on the basis of things that are true.

MD6020 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:23pm .... MD6021rshowalter 6/25/01 4:31pm
MD6022 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:34pm .... MD6023 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:36pm
MD6024 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:52pm ....

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense