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 - 03:03pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8050 of 8070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

After looking at Wines' fine piece especially, I've taken some time searching the hundreds of references to Thomas Friedman on this thread -- partly because almarst has often been so angry at Friedman, for reasons that Americans would find less compelling than almarst does.

Does the Russian government know what it wants to happen? If the answer is "we want to continue the status quo" -- that doesn't make so much sense to me. What does Russia want to happen that can happen? That can happen in terms of human realities, and technical realities.

I'd ask exactly the same questions of the Americans.

- - - - - - - -

I know what I'd like to happen.

I'd like each side to have massively ample capacity to deter the other -- each side quite capable of imposing costs and injuries on the other, on a non-nuclear basis. In calibrated ways. Stably.

With clear enough communication so that the weapons weren't needed. With coexistence with much cooperation. That is makes sense between our countries.

With both sides dealing with each other sensibly. On a well informed basis, working along the continuum between trust and distrust that it the natural state of human interaction, and the interaction between nation states.

It also seems to me that all concerned, including Russia, the US, China, and other nations, ought to determine key technical facts about what is possible about missile defense, and related weapons systems -- because it isn't good for America to squander resources, or for Russia to feel threatened without any reasonable cause.

If we could get rid of the fictions that are making actions seem so disproportionate -- we could come to much better arrangements, in almost everybody's interest. Because the whole world is watching, and because the fictions are being discussed, there are possibilities for peace and prosperity that wouldn't occur otherwise.

rshowalter - 03:31pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8051 of 8070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Suppose you're a American political officer, responsible for reducing risks, including nuclear risks, with Russia.

You think, for clear reasons that you have verified, that the Russians are functioning of the basis of mistakes -- that they are making decisions on the basis of delusional structures.

You're trying to promote peaceful relations, and stable commerce, between the United States and Russia, in the interests of the United States, but remembering that the United States is part of a community of nations, and needs the cooperation of other nations and foreign nationals for many reasons. Yet you face what you believe is a delusional structure -- on the Russian's part -- that is getting in the way of progress.

Do you get angry, and provoke an emotional confrontation? That might feel good, in some ways, but wouldn't serve national interests.

The thing to do, politely but definitely, would be to confront not the people who are misinformed, but their misconceptions. On the basis of evidence. In the most public possible way.

Both because that is persuasively the way that has the best chance of changing minds, and because, proceeding in that way, one guards against risks that your own country might be misunderstanding things, as well.

If the misconceptions are "elaborately defended" it would make sense to find ways to get past those defenses - and do so in public.

In military matters especially, right answers are the only safe answers. Mistakes are dangerous.

If the roles of American and Russian were reversed in the language above, the same points would apply.

Getting technically right answers about missile defense, in terms of what can be done according to open literature practice, and getting these answers clear and to closure, would be a straightforward part of that.

lunarchick - 03:45pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8052 of 8070)
lunarchick@www.com

The thing to do, politely but definitely, would be to confront not the people who are misinformed, but their misconceptions. On the basis of evidence. In the most public possible way. (Showalter)

wrcooper - 03:46pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8053 of 8070)

Showalter:

Have you tried to communicate with Pentagon sources--or your own representatives and their aides--to get information from "the other side?" What military sources have you consulted to determine how well or poorly they've defended the necessity of constructing a limited missile shield? Please cite the sources. I'd like to take a look at them if they're available online.

lunarchick - 04:05pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8054 of 8070)
lunarchick@www.com

Moving from the concept of a three act play, to a three movement orchestral piece, the composer would be aware of the four sectors of instrumentation. Each sector having its own culture, behaviour and potentials. In these terms the Cold war has been playing for half a century .. but .. the last movement isn't finished.

Culturally the Russians and Americans represent two, (of the four instrumental sectors strings, brass, wind, percussion) - currently out of synic - and short of an Andre Previn, conductor - with fullest understanding of the psychology of amassed instrument sectors - to write an ending, make all sectors work together - for a public airing of a final presentation. It's a complex matter.

lunarchick - 04:18pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8055 of 8070)
lunarchick@www.com

Pentagon - in vehicular terms is a five-door station wagon. Hexagons are the most efficient shape ... bees opted for these .. check out a hive. The two together make interesting design patterns. The question is:

How to design a safer world?

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense