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 - 04:09pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6478 of 6498)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6248 rshowalter 6/28/01 7:43pm

It seems to me that neither almarst , nor gisterme could answer the following question subject to a single kind of public crossexamination:

" What is it that you want to happen , based on facts you know -- just in terms of the interests you represent?

The crossexamination would be limited to a single line --

" Can you reasonably want that -- do you reasonably want that -- in light of the facts?

If we had definitions that far it would , it seems to me, be a great accomplishment. And a great accomplishment for almarst and gisterme - both in terms of their own understandings, and their negotiations (or at least, implicit and thought through interactions) with their spheres of responsibility.

We may not be so far from that -- but we're not there yet.

It seems to me that if almarst and gisterme were clear about what they could reasonably want, from their own point of interest exclusively, but in public, and in light of facts --- THEN a "negotiation game" could be defined pretty quickly - in a way everybody could agree to -- that would solve a lot of problems.

And there might turn out to be surprisingly few conflicts - the "game" might play out pretty nicely, from the point of view of all concerned. A Harvard B School professor would probably say it would be certain to play out pretty nicely, I believe.

We're making some progress - but there are show-stopping difficulties due to some misunderstandings about facts, and some corresponding false pretenses.

rshowalter - 04:12pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6479 of 6498)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It seems to me that the Bush administration is eager, irrationally eager, to build a system that cannot be built, based on arguments that are clearly, checkably false.

That can't be something that gisterme and other US representatives can reasonably want.

It also seems to me that the Russians, to the extent that almarst represents them, are irrationally afraid of entirely impractical technical proposals. Moreover, it seems to me that almarst takes far more comfort from Russia's nuclear weapons than he should -- these weapons are practically useless for the kinds of threats he can reasonably be afraid of. These mistaken ideas and responses can't help Russia reach accomodations that Russia can reasonably want.

We need to get some things sorted out. I believe that some essential things are being sorted out on this thread.

rshowalter - 04:16pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6480 of 6498)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is getting easier and easier to argue that the administration's "missile defense" proposals have no technical merit at all. That is, if these proposals are judged in terms of what can be done according to technical usages in the open literature.

To make these proposals practical, there have to be a long list of "miracles." And it is getting clearer exactly how miraculous these magical breakthoughs have to be. It is getting harder and harder to argue for these miracles -- and harder and harder to argue for the technical competence of the people backing the proposals. We've just been through a set of arguments, based on well established technical facts and relations, that make lasar weapons far less plausible or threatening than the administration has argued that they are. MD6418-6423 rshowalter 7/2/01 5:26pm .... MD6431 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:21pm

Almarst's idea that nuclear weapons protect Russia from the things he fears doesn't make any sense either. That could be shown, just as convincingly, by another matching process.

Simple solutions may be out there, but to get to them, America and Russia, as political and sociotechnical systems, have to decide what they can reasonably want.

It isn't sensible to want something based on illusions, or to ask for things that aren't possible.

If reasonable things were asked for -- they might be achieved. I believe that they could be.

The problem is only partly a logical problem. The difficulties, in large part, depend on fear, and on the need to cast off illusions, and look at things in a new light.

lunarchick - 04:17pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6481 of 6498)
lunarchick@www.com

On Facts:

Raises the point, what are 'facts', when peceived, actual and potential happenings and events are subject to interpretation cloaked in socio-cultural-historical wrappings.

almarst-2001 - 04:19pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6482 of 6498)

untermensch "Instability in the Balkans" 7/3/01 12:06pm -

"I think that Alexander Solzhenitsyn said it best when he described the NATO actions in the Balkans as the:

"MARCH OF THE HYPOCRITES"

And I would add: CRIMINAL COWARDS!

lunarchick - 04:19pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6483 of 6498)
lunarchick@www.com

:) Good Morning !

almarst-2001 - 04:23pm Jul 3, 2001 EST (#6484 of 6498)

lunarchick 7/3/01 4:17pm

The FACTS are the experience, the feelings, the emotions by the LIVING people.

The FACTS results from the acts of MEN and the GOD. And some far-away CRIMINAL COWARDS, the TERMINAL LIERS, the EXTORTIONISTS, the GANGSTERS, the $ BAGS with NO MORALS, NO SOULS, NO HONESTY, NO EVEN SELF-RESPECT.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense