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?

almarst-2001 - 06:26pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6197 of 6202)

rshowalter 6/27/01 6:16pm

"We need peace and we need to do the work to make it stable."

True.

"Nuclear weapons are nuts -- we should get rid of them."

We need to get rid of the notion that some nations may imose their will on another non-agressive one by a military force. Nuclear or "humanitarian".

Otherwise, there is no chance of your second wish to become a reality. In my view at least.

And that would be the LEAST OF POSSIBLE EVILS as a verifiable and controlled deterrance force.

rshowalter - 06:28pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6198 of 6202)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Almarst -- I sympathize with your positions very often, and favor your positions a little more often than I might like, because I'm seeking closure.

But you're wrong about having nukes increase your security with regard to anything but a nuclear attack from an adversary. The damn things are worthless for any other purpose - especially for Russia -- which could not credibly threaten first use of nuclear weapons - for cultural reasons I appreciate.

We are in a situation where a very large stand-down on nukes, and Putin has himself suggested -- needs to be done - getting to mutually assured deterrance from the current mutually assured end of the world.

It seems to me that while doing that, a mix of missile defense efforts (which I don't expect to bear fruit) and world nuke prohibition efforts (which I would expect to bear fruit) would make sense.

rshowalter - 06:29pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6199 of 6202)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And almarst , I've been knocking myself out trying to show how Russia can get an effective nonnuclear deterrance and how it can, in combination with other nations, meet your objectives.

Which are not incompatible with US objectives, in my view.

almarst-2001 - 06:31pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6200 of 6202)

Robert,

What kind of a credible deterrance against the next round of "humanitarian" bombing would you suggest?

rshowalter - 06:35pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6201 of 6202)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Give me a couple of hours -- some of the things I've put on this thread, and I'd like to gather them up. I don't have any doubt that Russia needs a calibrated and sufficient means to deter that sort of thing in the future -- understood by all parties.

But it doesn't have to take nukes, and it doesn't have to be in unreasonable tension with the interest of all nations, including the US.

There are going to be problems controlling anger --even though it is justified.

Give me a couple hours, and I'll try to give you a serious answer.

rshowalter - 06:36pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6202 of 6202)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With balanced non-nuclear deterrance , we could all be safer, life would be more flexible, and we'd save a lot of money.

Personally, I'd be glad that the world could go on.

Back in two hours.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense