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?

(6207 previous messages)

lunarchick - 08:16pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6208 of 6212)
lunarchick@www.com

GI: for clarity i use Bwsh for the 'W' guy, and Bush as in Pop-Bush for the puppeteer.

Can't work out why you insinuate that those offering competent inputs, such as Alex, have to sober up. Alex celebrates the Boston Tea Party - nothing more. But it does bring up a point regarding GI - arrogance ... which is linked to bullying .... inexcusable, especially when 'Elvis has left the Stadium'.

lunarchick - 08:27pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6209 of 6212)
lunarchick@www.com

rshowalter - 08:37pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6210 of 6212)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Almarst's key objection to nuclear disarmament, and to NMD, was stated in MD892 almarstel2001 3/9/01 12:48pm :

"Given the current world disballance of conventional power, the nuclear wearpons are the only financially feasible answer of most countries agains overhelming US conventional military. There is no fool who would not understand that. And that is precisely the aim of AMD to remove the last layer of protection from anyone who may potentially come at odds with US policies.

Almarst has repeated this point many times, and been consistent and totally clear -- at the same time that his real desire for peace, and nuclear disarmament has also been clear.

I've been assuming that almarst has been representing clear feelings of the Russian government and people on this matter -- and continue to assume that.

The point was made just after I'd made a careful argument for American vulnerability -- an argument I made without much considering the concern almarst expressed -- concern with conventional US military dominance.

I still think that argument bears repeating, because I believe it illustrates the enormous , and now inescapable, vulnerability that the US really has. The argument was made from MD886 rshowalter 3/9/01 12:23pm ... to MD890 rshowalter 3/9/01 12:41pm

The argument talked about the vulnerability the US has due to its committment to the internet, especially if internet attacks included physical intervention) and asked

. " How many ways could ( one) .... produce attacks, or distractions, or combinations of attacks or distractions?

. "How fast could events be made to unfold?

I made the case convincingly, I believe, that the parts of the US that were dependent on the internet were essentially indefensible against any competent nation state -- since there were billions of different ways to attack, that could be executed quickly, and in combination.

* * * * * * *

The argument made can be generalized - in the world as it now is.

How many millions of human and institutional targets could a nation state now actually hit - in focused, lethal ways, singly and in combination, at home and abroad, with various levels of traceability?

The answer is many millions of ways , and when one starts to do a workmanlike job of classifying them and setting them out (which a competent military can do) it is plain that, in the large, the situation is not defensible -- any given threat can be defended against -- but the potential number of threats is hugely too great for effective defense.

I'd like to add that, for effective institutional persuasion -- nation states must act on the basis of workable rules of POWER -- here are Berle's rules MD984 rshowalter 3/12/01 10:02am

Now, when I ask the question --

Is it really impossible for Russia, in combination with, and in communication with China, the nations of the EU, and other nations, to assure itself that the US will act responsibly?

it seems to me that the answer has to be "no - this cannot be impossible."

I think there may be staff work to do, and military work to do -- but I do not think that Russia has to lack for effective non-nuclear deterrants - in combination with other patterns of negotiation -- nor that Russia and other countries cannot arrange their deterrants in ways that can be clearly understood, taken for granted, and lived with -- even considered fair, by Americans.

Nuclear weapons are neither necessary nor desirable for the deterrance needed.

rshowalter - 08:43pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6211 of 6212)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think if militaries, all over the world, really got to work figuring out all the ways they could kill and hurt people (people with names) and how much damage they could do, and how many ways they could do it - - - the world would be a safer place.

NOBODY is fully defended. Nor can be.

It is an argument for care, good communication, and politeness, in my view.

* * * * * *

I think NMD is a bad dream -- and any other idea of perfect invulnerability is a bad dream.

We need to make peace - knowing that we are all human beings -- and hence all dangerous.

I also think that nation states have a duty to stay dangerous.

But to do so in a calibrated, proportionate, stable way.

rshowalter - 08:58pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6212 of 6212)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD562 zero_pattern 1/11/01 11:42am

MD839 rshowalter 3/5/01 3:43pm ... MD854 rshowalter 3/7/01 7:41am
MD861almarstel2001 3/7/01 6:32pm

MD690 rshowalter 2/14/01 4:16pm

and especially:
MD691edevershed 2/16/01 1:26am ... MD692 edevershed 2/16/01 1:29am