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 - 10:17pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8906 of 8912)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

REPEAT: MD398-399 rshowalter 10/10/00 11:57am

Nuclear weapons are extermination weapons, and although they may have been necessary in some inescapable sense during the Cold War, the use of them, by any reasonable accounting, is a war crime comparable (or, with current instabilities, worse) than anything Hitler did.

A cultural change needs to occur, where people look straight at what these weapons are, and reject the making or use of these weapons so thoroughly that they aren't made again. I think the poets, artists, literary people, and feminists ought to be up to this. Especially if the history of the 20th century, starting with World War I (not WWII) was more completely understood in moral terms. We need to regain some kinds of decency that, as Bertrand Russell explained, were forfeit in the tragedy-crime of World War I.

There are so many different ways, in an technological society as sophisticated as ours. to destroy the world (any competent industrial chemist knows more than a few.) They aren't done, because people aren't inclined to do them, and if a madman tried, too many people, understanding the stakes, would keep the crime from happening. Nuclear weapons should be unacceptable in this same sense. I think this is something practical to hope for.

I'm in a hurry, because I think the controls on these things are far, far less stable than people have thought. I think the chances of the world ending SOON are entirely real.

Nuclear weapons are noxious, they are unusable, they are morally unacceptable, they exist on a hair trigger, and they should be taken down.

To do this, the main thing required is that people have to recognize how afraid we are of these weapons, and how well we really know them, and respond to our rational and animal fears with a take down strategy based on rational distrust. If that change of heart occurred, the take down could occur quickly. . . . .

We DO have to think about these weapons, not only intellectually, but also emotionally. If intellectual argument and elitist appeals could have solved this problem, it would have been solved long ago. Ordinary people, a wide sector of the population, have to feel, not only "know" what's involved, and become properly afraid.

Then we could all become much less afraid in short order.

rshowalter - 10:20pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8907 of 8912)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If you think I don't believe this, count postings. Sample them - I've worked hard, Dawn Riley has too, and both Almarst and Gisterme have made enormous efforts on this thread. (Count and sample their postings, and you can see this.)

There is reason to be concerned. If people would check things, the desperate seriousness of the concerns would be immediately clear.

The world could end. With a little good sense, and reasonable cooperation, we could keep that from happening. And stop terrorism, too.

We need judgement. Distrust. We need to check and make sure.

Life, and love, and hope, and fear, ought to be enough to justify that.

rshowalter - 10:26pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8908 of 8912)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD8892 rshowalter 9/12/01 7:40pm

almarst-2001 - 11:42pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8909 of 8912)

Interestingly, there is no discussion on a 4th plane full of passengers being shut down by our own military.

armel7 - 12:20am Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8910 of 8912)
Science/Health Forums Host

A bit of perspective -- The bombing of Hiroshima caused a loss of life which was no more severe than a bad night of bombing in Europe in the throes of WWII. Nuclear weapons are considered specially "evil", I believe, out of a remaining ignorance and spookish fears about their power. They are weapons. All weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

armel7 - 12:29am Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8911 of 8912)
Science/Health Forums Host

Taking off my "host" hat
For those who wish to cite America's sins as reason for this attack, I challenge you to name a country whose track record is better. Yes, America has its problems, but we should take an honest look at the problems of the other nations of the world to see if we're really so bad:

China? TienanMen square; 100million murdered by Mao.

Russia? Stalin's 50million purge victims...

Africa? The latest count is about 2.5million slaughtered in the Congo civil war in the past three years.

Germany? It starts with an "H".

Saudi-Arabia? Ask them why no Jews live there.

Iran? Ask them why no Jews live there.

Iraq? Ask them why no Jews live there.

Afghanistan? A great place -- If you agree with the Taliban.

It is utter hypocrisy for people to sit and traduce the USA as if their own nations are pictures of virtue.

"host" hat back on
Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense