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?

wrcooper - 07:30pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8722 of 8726)

Bob:

Dereliction of duty or incompetence sound closer to the truth. If these people know that the system is hopelessly flawed and unworkable, and they're in it just for promotion or for the money or the whatever that doesn't inolve the security interests of the U.S. first and foremost, then their perseverance in seeking to develop it is at best morally culpable and may be criminal in some way. I think the move by the GAO to investigate the Bush administration to find out who lobbied them to get the current energy policy put into effect is extremely interesting. Maybe somebody should investigate the administration to find out who's lobbied for this wacko missile defense plan, too.

rshowalter - 07:54pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8723 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There's another book title,

NO PEACE, NO HONOR: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND BETRAYAL IN VIETNAM
by Larry Berman
Free Press, 2001

Every single value-connected word in its title is heartfelt, yet problematic.

I'm involved, and others are involved, with problems of the same kind.

At one level, I'm sorry for using the word "treason" in MD8716 rshowalter 9/9/01 4:34pm . . at another level not so sorry.

Sometimes it is useful to get differences of opinion closer to the surface, and such words can do so. But they do so at a price. I would not have consciously chosen to pay that price just here and now, and will try to make the best of having done so.

I could defend my word usage in the dictionary sense where "treason" and "betrayal" are used as rough synonyms .

But in some important ways, though it expresses candid emotions, the word I used is unhelpful.

And substitution of other words that seem right to me would be unhelpful in a similar way.

rshowalter - 07:56pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8724 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In terms of my assumptions, aesthetic judgements based on those assumptions, and emotions connected to the assumptions and aesthetic feelings, if feels right to me to say that what is being proposed on missile defense is "irresponsible to the point of treason."

At the same time, I have to know, and do know, that it cannot seem that way to Rumsfeld and others who are advocating missile defense as now proposed.

If I made other substitutions,

substituting "betrayal" for "treason"

or

substituting "dereliction of duty" for "treason"

or

substituting "fraud" for "treason"

the word choice might be, in some people's opinion, more defensible, but the same problems would remain.

I think, in terms of my understanding, that any of these words would be defensible, but do not think that Rumsfeld and others who are advocating missile defense as now proposed can possibly think so.

There are differences of opinion here, differences at the level of assumption and priority here, and they are consequential.

rshowalter - 07:57pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8725 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Can we talk about "right" and "wrong" here?

We can, in terms of assumptions . And we can check the assumptions.

Some things that look "beautiful" in terms of one set of assumptions look "ugly" in terms of changed assumptions.

And some assumptions can be grounded when they are checked -- or shown to be wrong when they are checked.

What fits?

I'm trying to be clear. Clear enough so that I can be shown wrong. And also clear enough so that, in terms of checkable facts, it might be shown that people like Rumsfeld are acting in ways that go grossly against the interests that they are supposed to serve.

We're dealing with facts that have grave consequences here, and it matters what is technically right.

It is a sunday, and it seems to me a good time to listen to a sermon, which is about the end of the world, and about judgement. I've cited it before. Very early, it asks the question

" What would be the end of the world for you?"

There is a religious content, but after the first 9 minutes, it is the story of a Russian colonel, who by judging well, kept our world from ending.

The last few seconds of the sermon, I believe, are nice persuasion, on the point that it matters, and can matter vitally, to be technically right in our decisions. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html
MD777 rshowalter 2/24/01 9:25am

I may be tomorrow getting back to this, but will try to respond in ways that are useful.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense