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?

lunarchick - 03:24pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9531 of 9541)
lunarchick@www.com

Myopic viewpoint - perhaps hear

THE NEW SECURITY AGENDA - 20.09.01

The suicide attacks on Washington and New York showed the sophistication of their perpetrators. It's thought the attack may have taken years to plan, and those behind it may have been a loose network emanating from several different countries. As such, they represent a new threat and new methods may be required to combat them.

As world leaders and security ministers meet in the United States and Europe to review their readiness to combat cross border violence, Dan Damon looks at how international law may need to be changed in order to allow governments to act as freely as the criminals.

lunarchick - 03:34pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9532 of 9541)
lunarchick@www.com

Above: says the PUBLICITY fall out is the reward the terrorists wanted - they got it. Suggests copy cat attacks will happen. Suggests these attacks may fall in line with our hosts edict re forum - wrt to 'unless'

focused on Missile Defense not terrorism, the Taliban or the impending retalliation -- unless it deals specifically with the MD question.

rshowalter - 03:39pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9533 of 9541)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I didn't think Armel's deletions were necessarily wrong. The order of discussions is important, and Dawn and I have been given leeway that I very much appreciate. I see the reasons for the deletions, and will try to learn from them.

By and large, we've taken our liberties for a reason, however.

If rational issues were the only issues involved, people would be unimaginably different from the way they actually are, and the nuclear terror (of which missile defense is a recent and problematic part) would either not have occurred at all, or been solved long ago.

In this thread we've had enormously extensive discussions with two people who have acted, I believe, as excellent "stand-ins" for the Russian and United States positions involved not only with missile defense, but with the larger difficulties that have made missile defense problematic.

Difficulties that have been emphasized, at both the level of logic and the level of passion, by the tragedy-crimes of September 11th.

It seems to me that those terrible, sad, wrenching events have thrown into an emphasizing relief the objections and concerns of almarst , our "Putin" stand in, and of gisterme . I admire gisterme so much that I've often suspected gisterme of being a person of high position and some rank in the Bush administration.

There's a difference of opinion that washes over the strategic (as opposed to technical feasibility) questions about missile defense. Here are key questions.

Can other countries trust, or adequately deter, the United States? Or must they rely on nuclear weapons to do so?

That's a serious question. Another question, also serious, is this.

Can the United States achieve security for itself, and reasonable relations with the rest of the world, pursuing the policies that include missile defense as a lynchpin?

I'm glad so many postings have been retained, because I think these postings, taken together, have moved the logic on these questions into a clearer form, nearer to a satisfactory closure.

lunarchick - 03:49pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9534 of 9541)
lunarchick@www.com

MD: World service program (above) said International Law was set up, over past 300 years, wrt Nation States.

Suggested that these now have to come together co-operatively, share data bases, to work against the plague of (Nuclear) terrorism ... is Iraq the leader of the pack?
Oil > george1j "Attacks on the U.S." 9/20/01 3:41pm

lunarchick - 04:21pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9535 of 9541)
lunarchick@www.com

Security:Risk:Cost: - Quality failure USA

Raises a point. Will the world insurance community take the USA to court for airport security laxity.

Raises the second point ... in a Laisez Faire capitalist system .. is the standard of security re the Nuclear industry still abominable?

rshowalter - 04:59pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9536 of 9541)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You have to find solutions that can actually provide security, in a reasonable balance with other needs that can't reasonably be neglected.

For that to be possible, with the vulnerabilities our societies now have, we have to become more effective, mutually defending communities.

That requires more openness, more conversations, more negotiations, more interdependencies, and more bonds of human sympathy. For entirely practical reasons.

Not less.

rshowalter - 05:00pm Sep 20, 2001 EST (#9537 of 9541)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Dialog on this thread, emphasizing "implicit dry run negotiations" between almarst and gisterme , involving missile defense, in the context of the entire body of military questions between the US and Russia:
MD6837 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:13am ... MD6838 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:13am
MD6839 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:14am ...

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense