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 - 04:04pm Sep 5, 2001 EST (#8500 of 8510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm facing complications here, and a situation that is such an overconstrained mess, and so polarized, that there is reason not only for fear and concern, but also for hope.

Like a lot of people, I know something about getting into fights, and something about avoiding them, and I'm having to think about both conflict, and conflict avoidance now.

In order to get to a larger resolution, there needs to be a "little" fight -- about small things that make a difference. Especially, a resolution, to closure, of some technical facts . And some historical facts , as well.

I'm having to consider priorities, and for me, the first one is one of community standards, broadly considered. I have to ask myself:

" What would this look like, and how would it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES ? "

I don't want to do anything that is either dishonorable or ineffectual by that community standard. Nor do I wish to ask anyone else to do any dishonorable or ineffectual thing.

MD2393 rshowalter 4/18/01 10:24pm ... MD7447_48 rshowalter 7/26/01 5:09am

Sometimes communities, guided by well thoughtful, well grounded and well expressed ideas, can do admirable things that Hobbes would never credit. Working together: MD44690-91 rshowalter 6/10/01 12:48pm

We're in a situation that needs reframing.

I'm going up against some established patterns, sometimes in ways that make me feel isolated.

rshowalter - 04:07pm Sep 5, 2001 EST (#8501 of 8510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm also just as concerned about responses in other populations, and the press arrangemetns that inform them. Epecially in Russia and China.

Almarst , Lunarchick and I have written extensively about press relations, in Russia and in the United States, that I summarized to a representative of Ted Turner.

MD2088-2089 rshowalter 4/8/01 8:30am

I believe that the dialog makes clear a number of problems that need to be resolved if real "win-win" arrangements between Russia and the US are to be possible, and believe that, since MD2088, there has been measurable improvement in the press performance of Russia, for whatever reason.

lunarchick - 04:10pm Sep 5, 2001 EST (#8502 of 8510)
lunarchick@www.com

uses search engines that filter for key words

Yet how dumb/smart is it ?

Inveresley - as dumb/smart as the communicator.

rshowalter - 04:18pm Sep 5, 2001 EST (#8503 of 8510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm sure of this. We're in a situation of paradigm conflict.

People are believing some very different, very incompatable things, on issues that are matters of life and death.

One can see that from comments on this forum thread, and from pieces like Maureen Dowd's His Magnificent Obsession by MAUREEN DOWD http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/opinion/05DOWD.html , a piece I find wonderful. Dowd dismisses missile defense as "The Defense That Doesn't Work against The Threat That Doesn't Exist."

Others passionately work for the Bush administration's missile shield proposals, and I have to feel that they sincerely believe in them, for what they regard as good reasons.

We're in a situation of paradigm conflict , in a situation where different groups, who may be admirable and accomplished in many ways, believe things so disparate that someone, in retrospect, is going to appear to be crazy , and even criminally irresponsible.

Perhaps I'm systematically wrong, and Ms Dowd is too. Perhaps others are.

Status matters here, but it ought not to be the decisive issue. Crazy ideas have been held by established groups before. And, of course, by isolated people, as well. On issues that matter themselves - right answers are what ought to concern people most.

On the board and among the advisors of CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm are many people, of overwhelming influence and achievement, who will disagree with me and Ms. Dowd about missile defense, and perhaps about many other key issues about the Cold War, as well. Gisterme may, I believe, often express views that would find a welcome at CSIS. I think a look at the names will impress, but will also impress with respect to the numer of interests, connected by a code of consensus, that might sometimes make for immobility, and ornate mistakes. Sam Nunn is Chairman of CSIS, , a distinguished group that also includes William S. Cohen , who wrote National Secrets, Too Frequently Told http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/opinion/05COHE.html today.

For reasons that matter more than persons or organizations ought to matter, it is necessary to determine, beyond the question of reasonable people, some key facts. That done, people can adjust to them. There may have to be much conversation and negotiation about meaning after the key facts are straight. But if the facts are straight, good adjustments are possible.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense