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 - 12:30pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8293 of 8299)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

White House to Let China Build Up Its Nuclear Fleet by DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/international/02CHIN.html?pagewanted=all

Is this a "win-win" solution? .... What's a win?

It is a proposal for a "compromise" -- in the form of two "accomodatations"

In one "accomodation" , China gets total self assertion, and nothing for the US -- a threat of our destruction permitted. An increase of terror, combined with a less-than-desired solution. (If the Chinese had wanted a larger arsenal, they'd have had one long ago.)

In the other "accomodation" , the US gets agreement from China to threaten China's vital interest in a terrifying way, if, by chance, it can build hardware that seems far-fetched.

The "rationality" of the compromise depends on the weights applied to different aspects.

To the extent that those "weights" can be checked , they need to be. So far, they haven't been adequately checked. The US is paying a lot - in terms of its own security -- betting on technical solutions that can't work.

Others disagree on the technical assessment -- but not, so far, in ways that can be checked.

But even setting the technical feasibility issue aside, it seems clear to me that we ought to consider other approaches, and not only this one.

Because the costs of this one are so very high. And this "compromise" reinforces, rather than reduces, reasons for fear, reasons for rigidity, and reasons for complication, on both sides, and for all the other nations in the world.

rshowalter - 12:39pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8294 of 8299)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We need solutions of that are beautiful in a disciplined way -- that are proportionate -- that fit what they are supposed to do, in terms of assumptions that are true.
MD670-671 rshowalter 2/11/01 11:58am

One main point is that we need to acknowledge that we are interacting, and must interact, along a continuum of trust and distrust .. and find ways to make that situation better -- in part by setting up information flows where some reasonable trust, consistent with the safety and comfort of all concerned, becomes possible.

A big part of this is checking and openness - - not deception and concealment about matters of life and death where the deception and concealment magnifies not only uncertainties, but real dangers.

rshowalter - 01:10pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8295 of 8299)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD1274 almarst-2001 3/21/01 7:41pm which quotes "The Wolfowitz Factor" was mislabeled in MD8291 rshowalter 9/1/01 10:17am

I should have checked the link. The reference is worth looking at.

rshowalter - 01:39pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8296 of 8299)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6932 rshowalter 7/11/01 4:24pm . . . MD6934 rshowalter 7/11/01 5:03pm

Several times on this thread, in coordination with Lunarchick , and in dialog with almarst , I've suggested

" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament, and the military balances that peace would take, set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion."

I think that conditions are ripening for getting something like this done. Some leaders of nation states involved (not necessarily all of them) would need to want it done -- and would need to let that be known, to people who had resources that mattered for the effort.

MD2917 rshowalter 5/1/01 6:05pm

rshowalter - 02:11pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8297 of 8299)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We might also discuss technical solutions that would adress both the needs for missile defense against rogue states, and the legitimate defense needs of Russia, China, and other nations. Techniques that would make missile defense, against "rogue states" plausible would also essentially obsolete piloted aircraft (none of which would be either stealthy, nor difficult to shoot down.)

A great deal that the United States is now proposing to spend money on would be obsoleted.

The money should be spent in other ways. It could still be paying paychecks in the "military-industrial complex" -- but more productively.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense