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 - 01:45pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8325 of 8332)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We need non-nuclear deterrance to be more flexible and stronger, too.

Calibrated injury of adversaries may sometimes make sense, or at least holding that capacity in reserve may make sense.

But nuclear weapons are not good answers to any question at all. We should get rid of the damn things, not set up situations where China and other nations build more nukes.

applez101 - 02:02pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8326 of 8332)

Several comments on multiple issues.

a) On US sanctioning of Chinese missile build-up possibility -

Fundamentally, this falls back to the core question of proliferation - does it increase the probability of war, or decrease it increasing security. Unfortunately, I fear that this current US administration is buying the contra-indiciated rationale of conservatives across gun-toting America lock, stock. No testing of the theory, and willful destabilization of the current MAD example.

b) BloodyNiall - on the US being 'ahead' by 15-20 years: I don't think that's all that useful a measuring stick. The Chinese have already adopted a across-board power ratio measurement, encompassing military, political, and economic influence. Even then, the US does hold superpower status, true, but is limited in what it can do at any one time.

Therefore, I think it behooves the world to unite against the US - along the principle of the Congress of Vienna. Since the US is unwilling to engage in rational self-limiting treaties, then the least the world can do is produce a peace-enforcing regime until another Great War rolls around as a result. ;-p (Anyone who argues that the UN has already served in this role can make a good case for it, but for the Cold War warping of the fora into bloc camps; and the two superpowers).

c) China does want to gain greater international status, and recognizes its a long way from it, whilst also be terribly vulnerable to some of its closest neighbours, like Russia and Japan. Personally, I wish them every bit of luck, since the US has become so arrogant! ;-)

ndpnyt - 02:03pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8327 of 8332)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?224@184.Ytd2aJiWuFB^2464878@3c5114@.f0ce57b

I see that rgbrasel has already made the point I made above about the arogance revealed in the Sanger article, but I think that point bears repetition and emphasis.

beaumiller - 02:25pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8328 of 8332)

My personal opinion of George W. Bush is of the lowest respect; he is incredibly deceitful, irrational, and cocky--and his administration follows suit. In order to undemocratically force upon us plans for a highly technological anti-ballistic missile shield, he is single-handedly forfeiting all of the steps we have taken and progress we have made towards non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. " This is absolutely absurd…This is taking 50 years of trying to control nuclear weapons and standing it on its head,” said Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It shows that these guys will go to any length to build a national missile defense, even one they can't define. Their headlong, headstrong, irrational and theological desire to build a missile defense sends the wrong message to the Chinese and to the whole world." This is especially true, he said, regarding India, which would try to balance against any Chinese buildup. I am worried about a world four years from today in which there are no diplomatic ties between the U.S. and other nations. We are telling the world that any rules that would normally apply to peace-loving, sovereign states just plain do not concern us. I, as an American, am being misrepresented by George W. Bush and his staff. Please join me in protest against this act of war unfolding before our eyes.

rgbrasel - 02:46pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8329 of 8332)
RGBrasel@hotmail.com

And has anyone thought of a concerted effort between nations to find and "neutralize" terrorist cells who may be in the process of creating deliverable nuclear weapons? When I hear of seizures of weapons grade uranium or the instruments used in creating nuclear weapons, I can't help but think of the seizure of illegal drugs. The DEA may seize 10 million of cocaine, but it is still available on the street. Why should nuclear material be any different?

rshowalter - 02:55pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8330 of 8332)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

At one level, what you say is just - - - but it seems to me to be particularly interesting because the Bush administration is risking so much (including honor) on a "missile defense" that, to the extent it has been defined, plainly cannot do its job.

That is not "war unfolding before your eyes" -- it is radical disarray, and a surrender of power on the part of the United States. A gross error - pursued beyond reason. Or pursued beyond reasons that seem able to stand the light of day.

If some technical points were made clear enough to explain to the electorate we'd be well along toward more peaceful arrangements -- - because the "military industrial complex" -- too powerful to break down from the outside -- seems to be self destructing. The US will have plenty of ties with the rest of the world, whether it has formal diplomatic ties or not. And Americans make pretty good sense -- a lot of the time. We're approaching what looks very much like the "crisis" stage of paradigm conflict. That's scary, because nuclear weapons are about, and there are grossly irrational, anxious, angry responses. All the same, it is a time of opportunity as well as danger.

The key to resolving paradigm conflicts -- in ways that can actually work for the human beings involved --- on both sides of the conflict, is getting key facts straight, beyond question by either side.

That isn't easy. But it can be done. And it helps, and can help a lot, if it is done, insofar as possible, politely. Although sometimes that's hard.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense