Even so, Ghandi's alternatives may not exist in a soldier's circumstances.

Can I assume that everyone has seen the movie b CASABLANCA , and remembers it?

I'm sure the answer is no, and that's a pity just now, because if I were to choose a movie to illustrate issues important to our understanding of nuclear war, and important to the jobs we now face in peacemaking, I'd choose CASABLANCA as the text to refer to. It is one of the most popular movies ever. It shows clear examples of peaceful harmony (for real manipulative, conflicting people) in a small society, RICK's nightclub.

It shows the core facts about psychological warfare, especially how damaging emotionally important and unresolved lies can be to minds, and to social function. It also shows examples of redemption in the practical sense, that I find genuine and compelling.

I think CASABLANCA rings true - I think it shows real human behavior.

Depending on how you look at it, it is one of the most romantic, or one of the darkest, movies I know. I think it is both romantic and dark. Everybody manipulates everybody else, sometimes with consent, sometimes without. Often, the manipulations are graceful, and work.

When lies are involved, the manipulations are rougher, and results are worse.

I'm gonna go on as if people know CASABLANCA . It is a fine way to spend an hour and a half. I'll try not to lose anybody, but it'll be easier if you know the movie.

One point to start, that I think is important when we think why we should prefer peace to war, and prefer direct statements fit to circumstances, to deceptions, is that deceptions and false understandings get us into trouble when unanticipated changes happen. The truth is distincly safer, when you have to react to unforseen complications. A lie, that you happen to believe, can clobber you. In fact, in military or adversarial circumstances, that's the main reason people lie so often.

The core story of CASABLANCA is of a courtship between two people in Paris, just before France falls to the Nazi Germans. The female lead is Elsa Lund, played by Ingemar Bergman (a knockout!) and the male lead is Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart. These characters are passionately in love, they are smart, and they work hard at their courtship. It is some stunningly beautiful footage. But the courtship has a deep flaw.

Elsa won't discuss her past. She says "no questions" ... and Rick agrees. They don't know things the ordinary chattering of courtship usually tells the people courting, and arranging their minds for close cooperation.

Disaster, not made clear until much later in the movie, strikes when Elsa finds that the husband she thought had died in a Nazi concentration camp is alive, and needs her, just as she is about the flee Paris with Rick. She sets Rick up (we find out later in the movie) to leave on a train without her (something he'd never do voluntarily), and stands him up, with a note saying "I can never see you again .... you must not ask why .." . Rick is devastated - his mind injured - he is in unbearable pain. It is a very gripping, convincing scene to me.

This recounting happens in the middle of b CASABLANCA , as a flashback.

CASABLANCA begins by showing a wonderful, convincing little society that Rick has built in his night club b RICK'S CAFE AMERICAIN . The night club runs perfectly and amusingly. RICK is a totally dominant Alpha Male character, everybody does as he arranges, he's got a breathtaking woman he doesn't care much for under conspicuous control, and the defenders of the cafe (the employees) handle the invading customers gracefully, with manipulations that everybody basically understands and accepts. (There's a nice scene of predation, too, with a pickpocket who distracts (lies) lifts a wallet, and escapes.) This is a beautiful example of a working society, and very convincing to me. Absolutely everybody is manipulative in this society - everyone is, by turns, manipulated and manipulator, usually in stereotyped and mutually satisfactory ways. There are little emollient deceptions, but it is a model of good commercial conduct and nice entertainment.

Rick is the alpha male, in total control of his world. Then disaster strikes. Elsa enters, with her journalist-hero husband. b Rick is devastated. It is interesting to see.

In fact, the bottle scene, where Rick is devastated and disabled by the emotionally and logically devastating, unresolved confict of Elsa's never explained treachery, is a fine example of how unresolved, emotionally laden lies can disable, can be useful in psychological warfare. Rick, a man totally in control, is brought to his knees, just by seeing his old flame. It is worth seeing the movie, to see how Bogart plays this. (This really does have to do with nuclear weapons - we used absurd contradiction, combined with terror, to psychologically disable Russians, and did so with considerable success. To a terribly unfortunate extent, in my view, that continues.) That bottle scene is worth going a long way to see, and worth a careful look. In this scene, Rick is trying to drink himself into oblivion, trying to drug his pain away, trying to somehow resolve the contradictions and pain in his mind from Elsa, while Sam, the piano player (you may recall the line "play it again, Sam ..." from the movie) is doing everything he can to try to get Rick away from Casablanca, away from Elsa, who he knows, and who he knows is now so damaging, so devastating, to Rick's mind.

Sam sees how dangerous the situation is, and really works to get Rick out of there.

Bogart's depiction of psychological agony is very beautiful and convincing to me. It is here in the movie that the Paris flashbacks occur - Rick orders Sam to "play it again" and Sam plays "As Time Goes By" as the flashback scenes roll.

Elsa meant everything to Rick, they loved each other, things were going great, and then, with no explanaiton at all, she blindsides him, drops him, and breaks his mind!

The scene of Rick's agony as Sam barely gets his crying husk onto the train is, again, a scene worth going a long way for. end of flashback.

(hint: when I first saw Casablanca, some things looked a lot like the nuclear arms talks to me. With the Russians a lot more upset and victimized than we were, but plenty of Americans traumatized, too.) To continue with the next shots in the movie .....

Rick looks up, bleary from drink, and choking back tears. There's Elsa, standing before him. She shows up trying to explain herself, trying to explain what happened. Another wonderful, very dark scene.

Elsa tries to explain, to establish emotional contact ---- Rick cuts her off, attacks her honor and femininity sharply, effectively, and clobbers her.

After a little more, two people who are still in deep need of each other separate, each in agony.

Note: They "aren't reading off the same page" - they haven't yet agreed about what happened in the emotionally significant past, and so emotional and practical contact between them isn't possible.

End of scene.

Walter:

On the fighting: Ghandi is not a good example - he was facing one of the most humane colonnial oppressor known, the British (some of my other comments notwithstanding, although, the British can be stupid in their pomposity, and brutal at the football game).

Ghandi knew that he could provoke a desired intellectual response in British. Not everyone was so lucky in history.

In general, the fighting urge is not always automatic: when put in the dire circumstances, not everyone will fight. And historically people WERE making deals and offering concessions rather then suffer obliterating defeat, or, simply, to prevent senseless bloodshed. Unfortunately, the latter consideration occured much more infrequently.

As for the nuclear imbalance: I think that instead of weakening the existing superpower (the US), it would be wiser to strengthen the RUSSIANS, who in their present day weakness will under no circumstances give up their nuclear capability, as it serves as the last vestige of their superpower status, and provides the emotional shield.

Point to emphasize - The Russians and we "aren't reading from the same page" about what happened during he cold war, and especially what happened in our nuclear and pyschological warfare interactions. Until we come to agree about the basic facts (not how we feel about those facts, but objectively what happened) we can't interact emotionally and practically well enough to make peace.

We'll go on clobbering each other, sometimes intentionally, but also, tragically, by mistake, sometimes when we're trying hardest to make contact.

In my opinion, our nuclear stalemate would be easy to take down, and the weapons would be easy to eliminate, if we were "reading from the same page" in the sense used above.

The Russians, knowing this, have worked for clarification of facts for decades. Worked hard. The Americans have resisted clarification at every turn. We've wrenched the Russians by absurdity and obfuscation, again and again.

Here, the Russians have the necessities of peacemaking straight.

We need a clear, verifiable, workably complete accounting of what happened in the past. That is, what happened that matters for nuclear disarmament. We need this so that we can communicate, and maintain the marginal but still real trust that disarmament is going to take.

As it stands, American and Russian military officers barely communicate at all at any level of emotion.

Back to CASABLANCA . The next scene may be the least convincing in th movie, because Rick looks in half decent shape the next morning. Anyway, after conducting some business he happens to meet Elsa.

There's a market scene illustrating how powerful Rick is in his world, but the main part of the scene is this - Elsa baffles Rick again, this time not meaning to maybe, by giving Rick a truth, incompletely contextualized, that he isn't set up to think about. Elsa, it seems, has been married to her husband (played by Paul Henried) all along, and was when she was with Rick in Paris. Not a fit to the way she acted !

Truths can be unassimilable, and even useful for disorientation, when they don't occur in a workable context.

There are some other scenes, nice but not on point here .... except that Rick would rather die than let Elsa and husband have visas that will get them out of Casablanca, because now he hates Elsa .... then, Rick goes up to his living quarters, above the night club, and there, in shadows, is Elsa, looking threatened and wrenched, but breathtakingly beautiful as usual.....

She wants another go at explaining herself, and also the letters of transit to get herself and her husband out of Casablanca. Some nice confrontation and dialog, especially if you like the style of '40's movies, and some distraction of Elsa, who is conflicted, wanting as she does to declare her love, snatch the exit visas, and tear herself away at the same time.

Anyway, a time comes when she pulls a gun on Rick. This gun is a useful rhetorical device, because, after a little back and forth, it immobilizes Rick just enough so she can get some basic truths into him.

And their messed up minds heal. Once they have the facts straight, communication is possible again. !

The romance (or treacherous manipulation, or both) gets heavier here, and at the end of this set of scenes, it looks like Elsa has agreed to leave her husband for Rick, and it looks like Rick has agreed, and maybe he has but it isn't clear.

There follows a beautiful sequence of scenes about mutual human manipulation, and various kinds of social redemption.

(Hint: this movie is really worth seeing, or seeing again if you haven't looked at it in a while.)

Walter:

It would also be good to have another superpower which can relate to the parts of the world the US does not.

Would also warm up the hearts and minds of the Western Europeans, who would be less inclined to judge the US foreign policy as ignorant and stupid.

A student of military function, and the use of deception and setups in battle and butchery, will definitely appreciate the rest of the movie, where repeatedly, sequences that seem to be leading towards one end are switched, by surprise, by one of the "dancers" or another. People end up, manipulated like robots, in places they didn't expect, where they are often defenceless. Nearly everybody whipsaws everybody else. . .. .

The kinds of whipsaws on show are analogous to the ones involved in any militarily sensible attack - especially any militarily sane attack with nuclear weapons.

The message these scenes show, from a military perspective, is an ancient one. It is this:

If you trust somebody, for even a few steps, and they switch signals on you, they can kill you.

This is, of course, the primordial fact about military function ... a fact well worth remembering if one wants nuclear disarmament sequences that can actually work with the real military officers who have to make them work.

You don't want to be anywhere near "trusting" relationships. Nobody feels safe with them, and they are unstable.

What you need is clarity of fact, combined with distrust. That's stable. That's where the hope for success has to lie..

Remembering this adds real spice to a viewing of the last parts of CASABLANCA .

Lots of ambushes. And by and large, the ambushes "work."

At the end, a woman who has been working very hard to ditch her husband on the plane to Lisbon, so she can stay with Rick, is instead coerced by Rick onto the plane with that same husband, .... and all cry a little and praise the wisdom of it all, to the tune of patriotic music. Off everyone goes to face their duty. H.L. Menken would have found it funny as hell, but I'm soft hearted, and I cried a little, too, smiling in appreciation of all the ironies going along.

It is worth remembering that in these scenes, the major players set each up like robots, and the setups and switches work like clockwork.

Just at the end, the scenes all have a socially redemptive flavor - redemption occurring when, in the senses that matter "everybody is reading from the same page" so social life can go on without the insanity that comes from disagreement about facts.

The only way to redeem a situation including a certain Nazi major is to shoot him, and he is shot.

The only way to fix up the relation between Elsa and Rick, so they can stay sane, is a recapitulation of what happened. · ***

For a while now, I've felt that a good start on nuclear arms talks would be to get the people to agree on what happened in CASABLANCA . The patterns of human behavior that matter for negotiation are on view in that movie. I don't mean that different parties have to agree about their feelings about the facts. But they should agree on the facts themselves. For the movie, that seems a possible thing to ask for. There are only so many disagreements likely to occur on such a finite text, and each, I believe, would be simple enough to resolve, even for Americans and Russians, if the Americans (and Russians too, but this is easier) were playing it straight.

If they could talk about the things in CASABLANCA as an agreed upon text, they might make shift to avoid impasses, or clarify them enough to make mediation possible, in disarmament agreements.

So long, that is, as nobody really trusts anybody else much, and patterns of checking are very complete, so that there can be no surprises, and "everybody's reading off the same page." The Russians need to understand how we beat them, so that they can heal, and put their society back into more effective, more stable shape.

And we should stop subjecting the Russians to terrorization and psychological warfare by systems of deception, since the Cold War's long since over.

I also think that we Americans should feel sorry for the mess we've made after the fall of the Soviet Union, when our warmaking should have stopped, and we should extend some helping hands, in effective ways, to help Russia heal.

All the while taking down nuclear weapons as fast as we can. Which could be done quickly according to the patterns set out in http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/286 up to entry 269.

03:10am Sep 27, 2000 BST (#32 of 60) I'm going to bed. Tomorrow, I'll say some more about notions of balance, and about the effectiveness of the combined terror-psychological warfare policies of "the Americans."

There is a problem. The policies that won the Cold War were not pursued with the informed consent of the American people, or of most American politicians. If one wonders "could there be a vast right wing conspiracy" I think the answer is yes.

I believe there was some justification for setting this conspiracy up. It was been arranged to make an obstensible democracy, the United States, capable of fighting a bitter, desperate Cold War. (Yes, Americans were terrified by the Soviet Union, and had plenty of good reasons to be terrified.)

Problem is, this shadow government somehow, never shut down, and in many ways we've gone right on fighting the Cold War, after it ought to have been over.

Which gets back to a point made before, and deferred, about how to deal with institutions built to conceal and defend lies. America has some institutions like that. They stand in the way of peace. They also stand in the way of more efficient operation of American society, and much more efficient operation of the rest of the world. And, in my view, these shadowy institutions are putting the country at grave risk, because nuclear "balances" are now so unstable, and these operations have told so many lies, not only to others, but to themselves, that they are hopelessly incompetent to face the challenges that we have to face.

I feel that we should take nuclear (not conventional) weapons down. Soon. I think, if the core problems related to history could be resolved, we could do this by Christmas of this year.

For thirty years, the Russians (Soviets), their shortcomings and brutalities notwithstanding, have been trying to moderate the growth of nuclear arsenals, or eliminate them. It is time to admit that they have been right here, and get rid of nuclear weapons.

I feel that all the nuclear weapons in the world should be taken down, and believe that it would be practical to get this done. Nuclear charges are obsolete weapons of extermination. Once people understand how terrible, and terribly uncontrolled these weapons have been, I think a prohibition on their manufacture and use could be made permanently effective.

JackGladny - 03:19pm Sep 27, 2000 BST opaz: are you rshowalter? I always thought you were in need of psychiatric attention.

rshowalter - 05:52pm Sep 27, 2000 BST Opaz is a brilliant female, I'm a mere male. And taking a little time to be careful.

Here's one thing that I think investigation would show. The Soviets, very often worked terribly hard to try to meet our very detailed and difficult suggestions for a reduction treaty. And when they thought they had it, and were exhausted but full of hope, were left in much the same case as Rick, at the train, and looking at a note saying "I can never see you again ..... you must not ask why." Don't know how many times it happened. A journalist who asked might get a straight, detailed answer. Many. The psychological agony was very, very real, because these Soviet people, who knew very well what genocidal threats were like, having dealt with the Nazis, wanted our genocidal threats relaxed.

Year after year, we worked them, frustrated them, and never let them "off the hook" ---- when Gorbachev offered total nuclear disarmament again - a terrible risk, and was rebuffed in Washington, he made a gesture we thought emollient, and "western."

Gorbachev stopped his motorcade, and reached out to talk to, and actually touch, some Americans. Were they indeed human? My view, watching at the time, was sympathetic. He had reason to wonder.

He'd offered to disarm, if only the Americans did too, and was jived, scorned and rebuffed.

As I watched what we'd done, I was ashamed.

It is a dark story. I think I'll eat lunch, and relax, and then tell it, unless anybody would find it boring.

08:26pm Sep 27, 2000 BST I guess I'll have to move slowly. It is a terrible story, and I find myself upset as I review it.

After the almost unbelievable agony and sacrifice Russia endured during World War II, The Soviet Union found itself facing American troops, actively prepared to use atomic weapons against the Soviets. These American soldiers had taken in many German war criminals (at this point, the Russians considered all German soldiers who had fought in Russia as war criminals) and used these Germans as thoroughly effective military teachers.

So, with almost no time to relax, the victorious Soviets found that they faced a new enemy - Americans fully trained in all the tactics the Nazi Germans had actually used with success against them. Somehow the Germans had quickly become American friends. The Soviet Union, which bore the disproportionate burden of World War II, was the new enemy.

There were reasons that the Americans acted as they did, including very good pragmatic military reasons. But this was a wrenching experience for the Soviets, whether one happens to like them, and everything they did, or not.

The Germans had a main tactical message for the Americans. It was that Russian soldiers were very brave , hated to lie , and didn't dissemble well.

When you threatened Russians, they'd practially always fight. So, if you threatened effectively and then stepped back into a tactical defensive position, you could butcher them as they charged you. The Germans had done a great deal of this during their time in Russia, and it had worked well for them. Most Russians died attacking Germans in tactically defensive positions (sometimes tactically defensive positions fashioned in seconds). Russians charged into well watched killing zones set up by Germans, and many more Russians than Germans died in the conflict, because of this pattern, which persisted at the tactical level all through the war.

Although training can mask this, Russians, at the level of culture, are very brave, and not quick tactical dissemblers. Which made it relatively easy for the Germans, who were skilled and carefully disciplined military liars, to kill them.

American battle plans depended on this knowledge, all through the Cold War.

The key thing to know, fighting a Russian, was how b brave the Russians usually were, and therefore how vulnerable to a force that could switch positions quickly, and take them down in order.

Our combined conventional, nuclear, and psychological posture toward the Soviets evolved assuming these things that the German officers had learned so well, and taught us so carefully.

For all the reasons one can understand, it remains very sad that the nation which, more than any other, saved the world from Nazi domination became our enemy so quickly, and hostility and distrust between our countries escalated so rapidly and implacably.

No matter how terrible the Soviet system was, no matter how monstrous Stalin was, no matter how ugly the Gulag was, no matter how easy it is to describe the Soviets, from a distance, as "the bad guys" and the Americans, from a distance as "the good guys" it remains true that our two countries, and generally subordinate allies, were in a continous standoff, without territorial change, for over forty years. All this time, we were posturing to each other, as militaries do, the war of words was continuous, and military deceptions were accumulating. Almost all this time, though there were switches of forces, and therefore exceptions, and though details were complicated, we were in a primarily offensive posture, with superior armaments, and the Soviet Union was in a primarily defensive posture, and usually outgunned. Our own people weren't told this. Our politicians may not have appreciated this, or been in much control of our core military decisions vis a vis the Soviets. But this was how it was.

Walter:

Please, don't blame Americans for all that's wrong with Russia right now. Whatever is happening there is a chapter in the long historical process which Russia has undertaken and undergone mostly on by its own (or God's) choice.

Did America contribute in the past 10 years? YES. First, the US did not foresee the collapse of the USSR, nor did it know how really weak was the infrustructure of its former Cold War enemy, hence such rapid disintegration.

Second, the US believed that the Russians will jump at an opportunity to build a democracy with the free market economy, in the US's image. No, Russia had always taken its own path, however misguided.

The result: misplaced efforts on both sides, deep disappointment in and apathy for the western style democracy and free market economy, even though no one should have tried to implement it in Russia in the first place, nor expect it to work in such a short period.

On the other hand it is very difficult to understand a country which hardly understands itself. But Russia needs help, and help it should get, but after a deep analysis of Russia's specifics, and without this notion, that all these years under the Communists Russian people were just waiting for the western style reforms. THEY WERE NOT.

opaz - 09:14pm Sep 27, 2000 BST thank you, rshowalter for your extended contribution to my humble thread. I didn't have the nuclear arms race in mind when I posted it of course but that doesn't matter - 'as above, so below'.

My original motivation was to explore a thought that had been creeping up on me over the last few months - that everything comes in threes. Then I came across the 'into three' saying in a book I'd found about symbols.

Earlier that day I'd been thinking about two friends who are opposites in the following respect: 'Janet', a long-term buddhist, is so 'grounded' that she is constantly aware of her surroundings and is thus highly sensitive to what's going on around her. So much so, that she has almost ceased to be as a distinct personality. She cannot get carried away or lose herself in something. She is no longer spontaneous, she merely observes. 'John', on the other hand, is totally egofull, always attempting to steer events to his liking, often oblivious to those around him except as they relate to him.

I was thinking that I wouldn't want to be like either of them and that some kind of half way house between the two personalities would be the ideal. And yet somehow this neither one thing or the other approach seemed unsatisfying and unsubstantial, a woolly compromise.

Then things began to clarify. Polar relationships, where things have to be one way or the other, on/off etc, don't tell the whole story. 'Balance' is a legitimate third guest at the party, and a very welcome one.

I don't know how clear any of this is to anyone else. It's basically a small nugget from my own inner world (one of the best things about these threads is the way you can talk to anonymous people as if they were intimate friends). The point of my thread was to see if anyone else had thought about such things. It's nice to see that others have, even if it manifests in different areas of experience.

2 points of information:

1. people who don't know me often assume I'm female. is it something about the way I write or is opaz a girlie name? I do hope it's the latter.

2. Jack, I'm cleary not rshowalter. get a grip, man.

Now, I'd like to hear about the best way to fight russians, according to a captured nazi officer. Do continue, rshowalter.

tutusxxi - (#27 ) I'll get back to you. I'm copying the old thread. The story it tells isn't "the whole story" about Russia's problems by a long shot. But I think it is part of the story, and a part sometimes missed.

It was an especially terrifying standoff - first, with only the Americans in possession of atomic bombs, and then the Soviets got atomic bombs, too. Then only the Americans had the far larger Hbombs, and then the Soviets got H bombs, too.

And methods of delivery got better and better, and nuclear deployments got larger, and larger, till a misstep could clearly destroy the world.

Almost always, the American forces were ahead, qualitatively and quantitatively, but the Russian forces were terrific too.

The business of military staffs, if they hope to use their forces, is to come up with first strike patterns that actually work, and all this time neither side got one they dared to use. But the dream of a nuclear first strike, that avoids retaliation and actually wins, has been in the hearts of soldiers on both sides.

A major American pattern was to always look, from the Russian viewpoint, like such a first strike extermination was in the offing. Most of the time, Americans succeeded in this objective - Russians were afraid, and stayed afraid, of a first strike from the Americans. Our fears of a first strike attempt from Russia were strong, but I believe less severe.

Opaz, the lesson about fighting Russians is that you scare them so badly that they panic, and attack you in an uncoordinated fashion. In WWII this happened again and again. And a crucial aspect of American military policy, over many years, was to keep the Russians scared, near to the edge of breakdown, so that they'd not have the psychological or manpower or financial resources to make their own country work well. We set them up for exhaustion and collapse. And eventually it worked.

For fighting and winning a Cold War, without actually firing nuclear weapons, it might have been the best, or even the only, workable way to proceed.

But then a terrible thing happened, we forgot that, after the Soviets collapsed, we had to dismantle our threat apparatus, and give them a helping hand, so that we could build a workable peace.

We didn't do that. We should do it now.

opaz Have you heard of the aristotilian mean, or golden mean? He was talking about what was the function of mankind, and one of the things he said is that our main function is to live "the happy life". He goes through lots of ideas, and being a philospher, comes up with this as the way to live a happy life. One of the things he said, which I really like is the idea that there is a happy mean in all our behaviour, so not too emotional, not to cognative, to be over brave is stupidity and not brave enough is cowardlyness. I would say that the mind is needed to work out the happy mean for each situation, but the emotions or heart will make that mean move from person to person, situation to situation. Well thats my understanding of it anyway. PS I seem to have killed the ten items or less thread! My first thread murder, i feel so guilty.

Opaz , so long as the nuclear weapons and the extermination threats polarize, we are paralyzed in fixed and inflexible (and very dangerous) ugly positions.

If we take the nuclear weapons down, we'll be able to achieve a more flexible, creative balance .

Russia is so formidible, and so different from us, that we'd never be able to invade them successfully. For territorial defense, they're well defended, without any need for the terror of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and other NATO countries are formidible, too. We're well defended without the nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons are past whatever use they may have had historically, they are terribly dangerous, they tend to paralyze everybody who gets involved with them, and we should take them down. So that both our societies can resolve the inherent tensions we face in more graceful, flexible, comfortable ways.

Let me paraphrase things I said about Opaz's beautiful question. Opaz is saying something wise, and basic. Her question speaks to me.

I'd phrase it a little differently. For every two opposing forces there is a NEED for balance, and for a balance that can be used, and guided, and can preserve our ability to act as free beings, and not slaves to "logic" or "forces."

Nuclear weapons are polarizing, and when we have them, we are slaves to their cruel "logic" and "forces" - we should get rid of them.

When Opaz speaks of "contradictions" I'd speak of tensions.

We need redemptive compromises, saving graces, to resolve these tensions,and should not, by denying one or the other, get ourselves reduced to absurdities and contradictions.

Nuclear weapons have immobilized us into very terrible, dangerous, paralyzing absurdities and contradictions. We should get rid of them. Workable tension resolving compromises always involve, and must always be understood in terms of, aesthetic elements, but they have control aspects too.

These compromises often contain elements of choice - elements where we can choose more of one aspect, or more of the other, and so get good action from what might otherwise be passive, inflexible tensions.

Once we get rid of nuclear weapons, we can regain our freedom to make choices, and free ourselves from terrible fears that still blight our lives.

Nuclear weapons are terrible, gruesome things - extermination weapons. They have no good use. We should take down the ones we have, and outlaw them. If we can recognize, at long last, how ugly these weapons are, I think we can rid the world of them, forever.

We need a world of more flexibility, more hope, and more balance. Getting rid of nuclear weapons would be a big step toward that better world. The hard part, now, is agreeing on what happened, well enough so that the stand-down, which is mechanically easy otherwise, can proceed. Maybe that won't be so very hard after all. But it will be a challenge, and perhaps to some degree a challenge of redemption of constitutional institutions, within the United States.

I think nuclear weapons, in the world of the internet, are incredibly dangerous and we should take them down. Perhaps it could be done by Christmas 2000, a date that would be easy to remember for many years to come.

Note: Recopying this text a month later, this date would still be technically possible, but it would take a miracle of change and wisdom in many human hearts.

Possumdag - 03:55am Sep 30, 2000 BST Thanks Opaz for stepping from thy bower of white roses and opening this thread ... an interesting recount of folly ... hammered home in ripper fashion ... if nuclear whiteouts could be deflected via dismantlement within the silos - and it's easy ... why don't the ND bodies make demands?

Mohammed Bedjaoui , President of the World Court , para. 20 of the appended Declaration, 8th July 1996.

"Nuclear weapons, the ultimate evil, destabilise humanitarian law which is the law of the lesser evil. The existence of nuclear weapons is therefore a challenge to the very existence of humanitarian law, not to mention their long-term effects of damage to the human environment, in respect to which the right to life must be exercised.....Atomic warfare and humanitarian law therefore appear mutually exclusive, the existence of the one automatically implies the non-existence of the other" -

Possumdag - 05:38am Sep 30, 2000 BST So, if there is a world court, then, why can't the citizens of the world go to it, point out their logical concerns ... and get a ruling to take down the missiles.

Possumdag - 06:38am Sep 30, 2000 BST On Outrage: Lady Margaret Simey - "just plain Margaret, if you please" - is already a nonagenarian. I rang her one evening to discuss an unclear sentence and, once we had dealt with that, her voice suddenly changed. "What on earth has happened to outrage?" she demanded. "There is a hell of a lot in this life to be furious about - and not just things affecting older people - and yet everybody seems to be taking it all so easy. We want more outrage."

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/society/story/0,3605,373528,00.html

Possumdag - 06:40am Sep 30, 2000 BST 4refs,above see also : New York Times on the Web Forums - Science- Missile Defence

I'm glad that someone raises such issues, but I wonder if the most draculan forces won't emerge from the anti-nuclear powers in the end, hiding unimaginable cruelties under the name of non-violence.

This thread was written with nuclear weapons involved, but the long section on Casablanca explains basic issues of how deceptions, that are emotionally charged, act in psychological warfare. This section applies directly to the Middle East, where deception and passion are both common, and many places elsewhere, too. The importance, and safety, of getting at factual truth is worth emphasizing in the Middle Eastern context. Sometimes, awkward as it may be, only the truth is safe enough to permit complex maneuvering at close quarters - the sort of maneuvering that peace and coordination actually need.

The section on the Cold War may be a useful cautionary tale in the MidEast. An incredibly stupid impasse has persisted, among intelligent, and socially able countries, for a terribly risky decade. Nothing in the Middle East is as dangerous as this impasse, which could easily destroy the whole world - producing about sixty million times the number of deaths in the last few weeks of Middle Eastern conflict. Even so, the Middle East is full of many impasses of a similar kind. Learning to make peace in the Middle East may be an essential step toward resolution of many problems in the world, including a continuing nuclear terror that could kill us all.

I appreciate the chance to post this, and hope some people are interested, and will comment.

I'll down load this into a word doc, setup a calm pastel background, put my feet up, pour a glass of dry reisling (isn't that what Guardian readers do ? ), and comment back later on this Deception in dealings theory ...

Paragraphs. Showalter: BLOODY GREAT GODDAMN PARAGRAPHS!

You leave my peer group (the over fifty) unable to wade the north face of Everest your pontifications present.

Go back, edit; Present your points to pursuade rather than to pontificate.

And NEVER use "Casablanca" as a fulcrum.

This could be the begining... of what?

Showalter: compulsive reading with an Opaz subplot of deception. Hoib - print the thread out via word and enjoy the poetry!

conpulsive reading, you all should visit the sci pan website

walter:

I actually am originally from Russia, and, although first leaft it long time ago, had to return and lived there from 1988 through 1997. I still travel there quite often, speak and write it fluently, and have been witnessing all the developments that engulfed that country and the region first-hand. Coincindently, I was in Berlin on the night the wall went down.

I'd love to get a viewpoint that contradicts, or compliments mine. Will be waiting for your reply, although this takes you a bit away from the original subject of this board.

rshowalter:

Very interesting. May we all learn a bit from it.

Power to your elbow

cheers...negro

tutusxxi - I'd be glad to converse, in print or by voice. To get clear on what you have in mind, please email me at <mrshowalter@cannylink.com> . Odds are we'll talk on the phone after that.

I haven't had the honor of knowing many Russians, but the ones I've been able to spend time with I've liked. And because of my interest in nuclear weapons, I'd like to know them better.

I have deep respect for the Russian schools of mathematics, which match my plodding feet-on-the-ground engineer's approach, and when I read them extensively, years ago, much preferred their work to the American stuff, which, in my view, was sometimes given to tricks, dodges, and "gotchas."

negro , thank you.

Hoib , I'd like to write better than I do, and will take another look at my writing, in hopes of seeing how to make it better.

There's a stunningly good SPECIAL REPORT on the Shayler Case in GuardianUnlimited today.

The story it tells, in large part, is of the use of secrecy rules by an intelligence apparatus, to avoid embarrassment to itself.

There can be entirely valid reasons for secrecy rules. For all I know, these rules are being validly used in this case. If so, the proper motivations remain in shadows.

In the case of nuclear weapons, however, these security rules, these discussion suppression rules, may be prolonging a real and important threat to the survival of the world, suppressing discussions that need to occur for nuclear disarmament to happen.

Some may have watched a CNN special about two weeks ago "REHEARSING ARMAGEDDON" - that made a clear case that the end of the world was possible, and a cause for level headed concern, because nuclear disarmament has not happened. A standdown of nuclear weapons is in the interest of almost everyone in the world, and the closer you are to the nuclear armaments, the more likely you are to know it. "Rehearsing Armageddon" made that clear. Nuclear disarmament is now, in my view, being blocked as a practical matter, by security organizations with history to hide.

Intelligence organizations, worldwide, have a profound, unchangeable interest in deception, and psychological warfare. They should. To do their job, they have to.

But in the compex world of today, lies are increasingly dangerous, and increasingly make hopeful accomodations impossible. Society as a whole has a huge and increasing interest in the truth.

And, if you look at world diplomacy, as a whole, over the last five months, there's reason to think that more and more people are becoming aware of that.

A problem, still, is that when patterns of deception have occurred, people with power may percieve a penalty for truthfulness.

The idea that everyone decieves, which at one level is as old as humanity, is, at another level, still an unfamiliar idea. It needs to be more widely understood.

If people cannot admit to deceptions without grave penalty, and if a circumstantial view of permissable deception does not exist, then there are patterns of truth that can never be established, in the world as it is.

Instead, people become passionately, desperately indentified to perhaps the biggest lie at all - the idea that they and the "real people" in their own group, the people who "can really be trusted" never decieve.

Whole large classes of redemptive solutions in human affairs are ruled out when people believe this, as they now, quite commonly do, against all evidence.

I wrote a poem about redemptive solutions. It is expository, and explains what redemptive solutions, as described here with respect to Casablanca , are. It may sound too personal, or too idealistic. But my own view is that "solutions" that maintain extermination threats, or that look unstable and ugly, are in reality far less practical than solutions where "everyone knows the same facts" and, through some complex of negotiations, everyone can live with them. I believe nuclear disarmament (not conventional weapon disarmament) would make a more beautiful world, and a much safer one.

Here's my practical "dream" - a "dream" that has characterized much useful human social interaction, I believe, for more than a million years of complex socio-technical cooperation and mutual support. It was originally written in the "THERE'S ALWAYS POETRY" thread in the ARTS section of the TALK.

rshowalter - Nov 4, 2000 BST For Jihadij and Leda,

The military people most responsible for nuclear weapons, mostly hate them. I

By Robert Scheer The Los Angeles Times Tuesday, March 28, 2000 http://www.gsinstitute.org/news_arch/scheer.html

Working through these threads is sometimes a fine way to push ideas to new focusings. With much distinguished help, I set out what I think is a new insight in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? ---- (Society thread) .

I'm coming to think that it is just as natural for people to act "inhumanly" - that is cruelly, and in a dehumanizing way towards OUTSIDERS as it is natural for people to act warmly, and with accomodation and mutual support, for people WITHIN their group.

I think the story of the nuclear terror, and reasons why it has continued, may be more easily understood if this is true.

NB: You get what you give !

saying suggest escalation or downspiraling of effects that may be negative, or conversely uplifing. to a society.

Somewhere equilibruim may intervene.

Legislation has been used through the last 2 centuries (First World) to improve the lot to the common man, later women. and later children.

How do we learn that some people are outsiders ?

Why are we taught that some people are outsiders?

#51 & 52 should keep me busy for quite a while poss. Excellent questions both.

Don't wait up peeps.

Maybe it is tough to be an "insider". But people socialize, and build common ground, if they're in the same group. People in the same culture exchange thousands and thousands of words, somehow construct very similar notions about the world -and when they interact for the purpose of some action, they agree on a great deal. So interaction is easy.

And when agreement is expected, and doesn't occur, they stop and compare notes. And if it happens enough, about too many things, or about things that matter too much, they stop interacting - they avoid each other -- they start to dislike each other ---- maybe being an outsider is as easy as that.

But however it happens, unless there are some disciplines of culture, the ways outsiders deal with each other can be ugly, brutal, and dangerous.

And in a family meeting, the ways different people deal with each other can be beautiful. Happy Thanksgiving, yanks!

With the US elections there are to be 'Insiders' (inner/Whitehouse) and 'Outsiders' (outer - loosers), the problem is the real INSIDERS don't get to vote ... so how can Yanks believe they live in a democacy?

How does the non-transparent US election fit in with the Casablanca psychology ?

There's a great deal of dishonesty and manipulation. In Florida, there appears to have been a great deal of decision making, most probably within the law, to bias results, as well as possible to fit the needs of the Republican administration.

Afterwards, there were many times when coercion, intimidation, and delay were used to avoid clear answers that would have made sense in terms of core ideas - re-elections that could have been done,were not, counts that could have been done were not done, and in some cases, were impeded by coercive force (Miami is a violent town, and if the people who decided to stop counting were not substantially threatened, and reasonably afraid, I'd be amazed.)

The lying and manipulation carry costs - psychological costs, and practical costs. When people feel deceptively manipulated, they are injured and alienated, and society divided. Societies, to work well, have to have "everybody reading off the same page" about basic facts -- and that has been frustrated, to a significant degree, in this case.

Americans do many things well, but this election has not been one of them.

The credibility of the United States, to itself and to the outside world has been diminished. We're looking at a political exercise with much in common with the O.J. Simpson trial.

For very practical reasons, effective negotiation in complicated cooperative circumstances - the circumstances national function needs, has to be based on truth, rather than manipulations that can't reasonably stand the light of day.

We're seeing an example where the media will tend to make the world better. Because of the coverage, such debacles will be less likely than before, and undercover, marginal or large manipulations less likely in future elections.

The costs of war are going up because of the press, and especially television. The costs of shady or technically shoddy election practice are, as well.

America's right to preach as the "shining light of democracy" has been diminished, and the general resevoir of good will of the US has been diminished, internally and externally.

A revision of electoral law, system, and control seems necessary. I noted that Florida cities had electronic scanning of a cross, whereas, Floriday country was using the antequated punch hole - non-working system.

Here's an interesting piece, that also uses CASABLANCA as reference and illustration. http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.198/8.2otero-pailos

Casablanca's Régime: The Shifting Aesthetics of Political Technologies (1907-1943) by Jorge Otero-Pailos Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico jotero@mit.edu © 1998 Jorge Otero-Pailos. All rights reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------

...the concept of reality is always the first victim of war. --Paul Virilio, paraphrasing Kipling (War and Cinema 33)

Otero starts:

Vacillating Realities 1. At the corner of the bar a man in a white suit, probably an American business traveler, asks for more coffee and looks intently at a young professional woman who, seated across the room, is slowly sipping a Martini. The bartender notices his stare and quietly smiles while drying off the sparkling glassware. The room is dimly light by wall sconces that cast a pale glow over posters of Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca. "As Time Goes By" is playing almost imperceptibly in the PA system. Five clocks on the wall mark the time in L.A., New York, Paris, Moscow, and Tokyo. He could be anywhere in the world. The napkin under his drink has a familiar logo that reads "Rick's Café," and through the front door he can see the Hotel receptionist. The man finishes his coffee, walks slowly to the front door of the Hotel, and exits. He pauses for a moment to light a cigarette and to look around. An immense boulevard lies before the building dividing a row of modern structures from an old masonry city wall. "Is this really Casablanca? It looks nothing like the movie," he murmurs. It is a typical scene inside Casablanca's Hyatt Hotel.

I'd like to go there ... and check!

"State affairs are deemed too complex to explain to everyone, yet they must somehow meet with the support of all affected by them if the government is to function effectively. Therefore, policies and directives, once resolved at the legislative level, must be presented as the best and most desirable solutions, and communicated to the socius in simple but persuasive terms. This aspect of politics--the interface between government and individual--is all about representation, about wheedling, about influencing the public's understanding of reality. In this sense, war is a perfect political technology: It exercises its political strength by placing an emphasis on difference, and rallying a particular and otherwise heterogenic socius into a cohesive unit--within which difference is not tolerated. It is a condensation of complex diplomatic relations into a simple and understandable right and wrong: either you are in or out; it is a matter of life or death. "

from 10 of 30 paras Post 60 ref

I have hopes that some of this thread (and the meat of it was posted early) will serve a persuasive purpose. If people understood, in historical and human terms, how psychological warfare works, and how nuclear terror came to be, we'd live in a world with better odds on a safe and decent future.

Lies are more dangerous, in practical and pschological terms, than people think. And since lies have always been a conscious, powerful part of military and military-political strategy, the need for sorting out the truth can be compelling, if right action is to be reasonably possible.

Interesting to note that 'casa' is spanish for house and 'blanca' could be white.

Are there any parallels between Casablanca (the movie) and Casablanca (the Whitehouse) - just a passing thought :)

rshowalter, just read this thread, and was captivated. We share an experience - I was part of the 'big lie' as well, for a while.

Like you, I believe that it worked, against the odds. Partly by accident, and partly by design, it produced 66 years of relative peace, in a century that had previously averaged a global convulsion every twenty years.

I am personally grateful, in that I was able to use the period to have and bring up a family in 'time of peace'. But I now find myself saying to them "I don't envy you the future - it was better in my time".

I differ from you though, in that I do not see the problem as being solved by 'rapprochement', increased frankness, between the Russians and the USA.

I see the problem as being that nuclear weapons, though they served the purpose of maintaining peace until this time, are now no longer a 'political' weapon. They are increasingly routine military hardware, available not just to 'super-powers' but to smaller nations, which may soon decide that they would like to be bigger ones, by fair means or foul.

And I don't see any way of controlling, or 'disinventing', those weapons.

http://abc.net.au/2shot/ep12.htm Richard Butler - Weapons Inspector, talks about his remarkable career

I think nuclear weapons MUST be controlled, and must, as soon as possible, be outlawed. We must find a way of controlling these weapons - and though we can't disinvent them - we CAN make it very difficult - in a reasonable moral climate, to make them, or threaten to use them. If the world is to survive veyr long, I believe we MUST find ways to do this. In THE NEW YORK TIMES forums, in the Science section, there's an extensive discussion on MISSILE DEFENSE.

I'll have some references from that thread, and a rough guide to it, fairly soon.

In #268 I write this: The technical part of full world nuclear disarmament isn't especially difficult for the nation states that would have to do it. The motivation to eliminate nuclear weapons is the harder part.

I make a proposal in #266-269 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/286 September 25, 2000 Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, this year or next year. What would have to happen?

"Given sufficient understanding (and hence motivation) among the main participants, primarily the U.S. and Russia, almost all nuclear weapons could be dismantled in about four weeks time, with rapid mop up and convergence to a nuclear weapon free world thereafter. "The massive arsenals of the U.S. and the former USSR could be dismanted by the military forces responsible for them, with the opposite side, in every case, observing and assured that the weapons could not be used as part of a first strike trick in the course of stand down. Trust or good will would not be necessary nor would they be assumed. Distrustful checking and deterrence would be used to provide the vital assurances the nation states would properly need."

From #270-304 there's and extensive discussion, taking the better part of a day, between me and a personage I've suspected was William Jefferson Clinton. Here's the beginning of it http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/290 At #304, I close that discussion with this:

....."Some mistakes have been made, and you and I weren't very old when they were made. They can be fixed. A lot of things would improve if this were done. They are American mistakes, and Americans, and American leaders, have to fix them." http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/324

Tony, perhaps you'll find this dialog of interest. The thread is still continuing. I'll have more to say about it in a while. I think we CAN get rid of nucs, and think that we must.

In my view, the role of journalists, and literary people, would be vital in such an effort.

Walter:

How does one outlaw the nuclear weapons? How does one control proliferation thereof?

How can one force various nations with opposing and diverse interests to think alike? The idea is certainly grand, but a possible outcome may be disasterous.

Don't know what Showalter thinks, but, for myself, i think that all of us who are under 'target' threats from nuclear nations ought to put a mass international insurance claim to a world court re the 'terror and emotional suffering' we are undergoing and stressing over.

Take a look at the power station that 'blew' in 1985. The people there eat food grown in radioactive dirt. The people are radioactive. They have illness and thyroid cancer. Some of these kids come over to us (my country) for vacations. The area around the powerstation should be sealed off and the people moved.

If there's spare cash in the world it should be used to tidy up this mess!!

The only thing that causes moral reckoning in the USA is a court decision that involves big dollars!

rsho, had a look. The discussion was interesting, but also very centred on the Russia/USA point.

I'm not so worried about super-powers having the bombs. I'm worried about smaller, less stable ones having it - particularly the ones that are run by military dictatorships.

You can't negotiate a solution with countries like that. Or rather you can negotiate what looks like agreement on a solution, but you can't rely on them to honour it. Nor can you check up on them - as Richard Butler found out.

You are dead right on one thing, though. Only one country in the world can 'solve' the problem; the United States. But I fear that the 'solution' is the same one that obtained during the Cold War; the threat of 'massive retaliation' on anyone who uses the weapons, anywhere, against anyone.

And only one country has the resources to carry out that threat, anywhere in the world.

I'm afraid the USA is going to have to adopt - or should I say 'continue in' - the role of 'world policeman'.

Tony:

I see that you have divided the world between superpowers, who are presumed to be stable and civilised, and others, who are presumed to be not so.

Does it mean then that there ARE different ways of going about conflicts, warfare, resolutions thereof, peace treaties, etc., among different people of this planet?

When I referred to the difference is perception and attitudes on these matters that exist in the Middle East you made some snide derrogatory remarks. Now, you seem to take an elitist position on the issue of who deserves more concern with respect to the possession of the nuclear weapons. Are you then a hypocrit, or just confused?

both

The problems of dismantling the big arsenals - the ones that could so easily destroy the world, are a central concern. Terrorism, so far as I can see, isn't going to produce as many deaths as malaria, or tuberculosis, or other things we tolerate, for a long time, if ever.

The huge arsenals and lousy controls the US and Russia have set up NOW could quite easily destroy the world.

So looking at the U.S. and Russia makes sense - even if nothing more could be done.

But much more could be done, I believe. The problem is that people would have to understand, intellectually and morally, what nuclear weapons are. Here is a SIMPLE point, that needs to be understood, and understood widely.

IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

There needs to be a consensus about that. If there were, the things could be effectively outlawed. I don't happen to be a pacifist. But nuclear weapons are horrific - and THAT has to be widely understood.

Lots of people understand it already.

This is an area, I believe, where journalism might make a tremendous difference.

I think an effort ought to be made to negotiate a full nuclear disarmament, and motivate it. Given the dynamics of the situation, I think a "dry run" at this might well be done by several major newspapers, working together, in work that would be superb journalisms and, in my view, a major contribution to world peace.

A good deal of spade work towards that end has now been done.

Every argument FOR and AGAINST nuclear weapons, and FOR and AGAINST disarmament, might be set out side by side. All the institutions FOR nuclear weapons and FOR the current balances could be given every encouragement to explain themselves. There are ways, now that the internet exists, and people are getting used to its usages, to get around most, if not all, of the basic barriers that have kept people from knowing the truth about nuclear arrangements. Enormous bodies of information are in place, and competent organizations are, too.

The output could be superb journalism, at the least, and I believe that it might shape policy.

With the facts clear (and many recognized people would bear a hand in making them clear) to the general population in US, UK, and elsewhere, I think that the we'd be well on the way towards ending the nuclear nightmare, and effectively outlawing nuclear weapons. I'll be back about this.

I think the nuclear terror is a problem ripe for solution.

and i think you're just the man to sort it

There are good organizations, and many good people, ready to work hard for disarmament, and many are "names" that would interest readers. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/410 contains this:

There is a silence that the people at the Global Security Institute http://www.gsinstitute/ the Fourth Freedom Forum http://www.fourthfreedom.org/ and http://www.responsiblesecurity.org/

the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org/

and many other organizations (not least, the United Nations ) are trying to penetrate.

In the NE edition of the NYT, on page A7b there was a very impressive full page ad from Alan Cranston's Global Security Institute with an enormously impressive list of people, including senior military, nuclear arms talk, and CIA people, many Republicans, in support (see their web site) of a statement that read as follows.

"An Appeal to End the Nuclear Threat: Concerned Americans Speak Out Now is the Time

" The end of the Cold War has offered the most promising opportunity since the advent of nuclear arms in 1945 to free the world from nuclear danger.

" Instead we witness the spread of nuclear weapon technology and the deepening crisis of the nuclear arms control regime fashioned by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

" To take advantage of the new opportunity and avert the new perils, we call upon the United States goverment to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. As immediate steps along that path, we urge the global de-alerting of nuclear weapons and deep reductions in nuclear stockpiles."

Signatories of the Global Security Institute appeal as of October 2, 2000 seem well worth listing, because I find the list hopeful and impressive. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/412

I have reason to believe that most of the people on this list would, if asked, supply good, insightful copy on disarmament.

rsho, the problem is that there is a whole 'second generation' of nuclear-armed powers to whom the old rules no longer apply.

You seem to be arguing on the basis of harnessing public opinion to the point where all relevant governments come under pressure to disarm.

This sort of 'bottom up' pressure could certainly be applied to governments like those in the USA, Britain, and France.

But are you sure that the Cold War is over, and will stay over? Prospects for peace and co-existence don't seem as good now that Russia has a new leader.

And what of India, Pakistan, Israel, China, North Korea - and possibly countries like Iraq and iran? You cannot hope for 'public opinion' to sway most of those governments in the way it might in the west. For a start, several of them 'control' public opinion. But more important, they didn't acquire the weapons on a whim, by accident - they acquired them because they don't trust their neighbours.

How would you set about persuading India and Pakistan, for example, to trust each other enough to disarm? What arguments, what persuasion, would you use?

And even if you got some sort of treaty, how could you be sure everyone would conform? Who would enforce such a treaty, and how would they do it?

Tony50 , you ask very good questions. We don't seem to have much essential disagreement about the "first generation" of nuclear powers, and let me adress what there is of that disagreement, first.

I'll go back and check, but as I remember, Russian and the US, between them, have 97+ % of the nuclear explosive power in existence. Most of the rest is in the hands of UK, France, and China.

The US and Russian arsenals, which are now on hair triggers, and now exist in an internet world far less stable than the world these obsolete weapons were designed for, could easily destroy the world.

So major reduction of these forces is an important goal. The mechanics of disarmament for Russian and the US is relatively straightforward. The crucial issue of primal distrust (not trust, which is impossible where nucler weapons are concerned, but distrust) must be handled. It can be. That issue handled, full or nearly full nuclear disarmament could happen quickly. My proposal in #266-269 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/286 sets out a way where the mechanics of take-down of these weapons could proceed. There are doubtless other ways. The crucial matter of mechanics is the assumption of distrust, which is realistic, rather than trust.

Now, Vladimir Putin may be the devil incarnate from some perspectives. I don't think that matters so much. He has suggested DEEP cuts in nuclear weapons (down to hundreds, from tens of thousands). The cuts can be entirely verifiable. If the AMERICANS were willing to cut their forces so deeply, and if the Americans were willing to do so on a basis that did not ask for trust, but assumed distrust, then massive, if not complete disarmament between the US and Russia would be possible. Similar degrees of disarmament with the other "first tier" powers would be possible, too. Public understanding would be essential for this, but I believe that it would be a reasonable thing to bring that public understanding, and public sympathy,into existence.

Tony50 , that doesn't address your "major concern." But it does mine - I'm concerned, first and formost, with the destruction of the world.

Your concerns about India, Pakistan, Israel, China, North Korea, perhaps Iraq, Iran, and possibly other nations are essential concerns.

And, as you correctly point out, "public opinion" won't and can't suffice to motivate nuclear disarmament of nation states against their own percieved interest.

(Even so, public opinion CAN be powerful, and an essential part of any workable long term solution to the nuclear nightmare we've come to live in.)

So it becomes necessary to ask "what are these things good for?" How are they useful to a nation state? And also, how can we make them less useful?

I want to take time to deal with that carefully. The issue of what threat means, and how human beings respond to threat, is essential here.

The very word "threat" has been a major stumbling block in the nuclear arms talks - it is a word laden with fear and confusion, and notions around it are dangerously muddled.

I'm going to take a little time to collect my notes, and search some texts.

But here's an essential point.

Nuclear weapons are worse than useless for any kind of war, except for wars extermination. Extermination of whole nation states. Even for monsters, wars of extermination are not worthwhile. Nor, even with nuclear weapons, are they easy.

Nuclear weapons are not cheap and easy to get, or cheap and easy to own and maintain.

When people better understand, not only how useless they are for "limited" war, but also how reprehensible their use is, and come to dishonor, rather than honor, those who have them, it ought to be possible to outlaw them, so that the prohibition sticks.

Pakistan and India are the toughest case. There is no hope if they are asked to trust each other. If it is assumed that they distrust each other, there is considerable hope for disarmament, which is in the interest of both sides, or can be made to be.

I'll get back to you, with more on the crucial issue of threat, and what unlimited threats do to people. There's a basic fact that "nuclear strategy" ignores. Human beings, if you threaten them enough, are likely to fight.

Great questions. Happy New Year !

Public opinion is often 'behind' that of strong moral leaders ... perhaps they don't know the facts, or perhaps they are shrouded in 'old propaganda type knowledge' ... therefore great moral leaders may be needed to GIVE MORAL LEADERSHIP ... so who have they been, where are they, and why aren't they developing strategies to lead us into a peaceful world ?

Thanks for being so open-minded, rsho! There are so many issues to be discussed now that we had better take them one at a time. First of all, a slight digression on the subject of the nature of nuclear weapons.

At first these were treated as a military option; 'just another weapon', but bigger and better and cheaper to deliver (in terms of lives expended). But the military rapidly realised that they had very little direct use for them in any likely military scenario.

NATO (and no doubt the 'other side') considered using nuclear weapons tactically in the '60s - shells fired from guns, or bombs dropped from tactical support aircraft (that was actually the part of the picture that I was peripherally involved in). It rapidly became clear that, once the armies were locked together at tactical ranges, you'd be killing your own people as well. Using them against 'lines of communication' in the enemy's rear looked feasible, but even then the fallout would affect your own people.

The military debate was exactly analogous to the debate on use of poison gas after WW1. All armies had stocks of phosgene and chlorine and mustard-gas throughout WW2 (they probably still do) but they don't get used much - only by nutcases like the Iraqis - because of their unpredictability and the danger to your own people.

So you can take it that nuclear weapons have largely been 'disinvented' by the military (the saner members of it anyway) already.

But nuclear weapons have had important political effects. The first is that they have legitimised 'area bombing' of civilian populations. In WW2 the Germans bombed cities indiscriminately from the start - following up with rockets and missiles that could quite literally land anywhere. But the British and Americans spent a lot of lives on fruitlessly trying to bomb 'military targets' only. Sure, they fell back on 'area bombing' eventually, as being the only thing they could do in practical terms - but they had to go to great lengths to conceal that fact from their respective 'parliaments', otherwise they'd have been stopped in their tracks.

Strange that, since the advent of nuclear weapons, all of us accept that the civilian population of any country will now be a legitimate target? That wasn't the case in the democracies, until 1945.

That acceptance, plus the sheer power of nuclear weapons, would make sure that, in any war between the 'great powers', the politicians would die too. Call me a cynic if you will, but I believe that that has been the main reason why there hasn't been a World War Three.

The Pentagon, in its clinical (slightly deranged) way, actually elevated this principle to the level of a recognised war-winning tactic. They called it 'decapitation'. I'm sure it's still in the 'Strategic Bombing Playbook' - remember, it was tried on Ghaddafi, Saddam Hussein, maybe even Milosevic. But thankfully with HE bombs only.....

And there's the fact that the weapons could be used as a 'last throw' - if you were losing the chess game, you could sweep the pieces off the board, or even tip the table over, so nobody wins........

All this leads me to believe that, given that nukes are 'political' weapons, it would be very difficult to get all pollies to give them up.

And I can still foresee situations in which their deterrent effect might once again be 'a force for peace'.

The politicians respond to the logic, and moral standards of the populations they represent.

In the Science in the News forum of the The New York Times I posted this, and I think it fits here http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f05e1ab/1935

Here it is in part:

"rshowalt - 05:00am Sep 27, 2000 EST (#1648 of 2549)

"As a mathematician, I've used a pattern, that is as old as the perfection of scientific instruments, that may be called the "loop test." Things are supposed to add up. Proportionalities are supposed to yeild consistent results . . . . . . .

"How about "getting things to add up" in moral conduct? Isn't it necessary to our function as social animals, in practical ways?

"Nobody can say "it is all right, under some circumstances, to make a first strike with nuclear weapons" and have things add up, according to any SELF CONSISTENT ethical standard at all. Try it, and try sequences of reasoning, and you'll find that the consistency of your moral universe self destructs.

"In some of the literary forums, people talk about the death of culture, the death of any standards at all. I think it starts here, and think that it is profoundly important. Our culture has been corroding, degrading, eating into itself, and making the moral instruction of children foundationless, by staying committed to the proposition - a basic stance of our national policy, that the U.S. President can, and will, use nuclear weapons when he chooses, and that "morality is not applicable to the actions of nation states."

"Americans insist on that in international conferences and negotiations.

"It is a horrific stance. If morality doesn't apply to nation states, how does one object to Adolph Hitler, or Eichmann, or their like? Logically, one cannot. Even so, to justify the use of first strikes with nuclear weapons, one logically has to take this stance. The United States Government does this, and has done so for more than thirty years.

"I feel that, even if the dangers with nucs were small (and they are HUGE) this moral confusion would be too high a price for us to pay for keeping them.

". . . . . . . the United States of America insists that it has the right to use nuclear weapons when it chooses, and it has coerced silence on the point from the Russians and the rest of the world.

"If we're trying to get even rough senses of proportionality in morality, and if we presume to make moral judgements of others, how can we make this stick?

"And if we want to comfortably do the complex negotiating that our society needs to work, don't we need some moral common ground amongst ourselves, that people can agree on?

"We're paying far too high a price for keeping nuclear weapons, and for justifying our past actions, which may have been necessary during the Cold War, but are surely not justified now. We should get rid of them, and admit the obvious fact that they are reprehensible, shameful, weapons - the ultimate no-nos by reasonable moral standards. Things to be forbidden.

If moral comparisons are useful at all, and they must be, there is good reason to insist that it is never all right to make a first strike with nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear disarmament depends, I believe, on getting this clear. It would seem a rather simple point, if the United States had not been asserting the contrary, forcefully, for so many years.

I'll be back on the issue of "threat." Confusions about what threat is good for, confusions that concern questions of fact, are central to discussions of the practicality of nuclear disarmament.

Pakistan and India can't use the nuclear weapons they have, or could reasonably be expected to build. Nor could any other nation. If they understood that, getting rid of these holocaust makers would be doable.

USA Clinton has signed a document ratifing a 'world court' of some type. The USA population don't want it to apply to the USA internally! Would this type of court be strong enough to rule on Health&Safety Nuclear Matters i wonder.

The logic of a 'first strike' was that the enemy would be targeting your missile silos/air bases. So if you waited till he attacked, you'd have nothing left to reply with!

Don't forget the deterrent effect, though, rsho - particularly my point that the politicians know that they would die too.

So you're expecting a pecking order of logic to apply to button pressing ?

You must remember this; a kiss is just a kiss. A smile is just a smile. The fundamental things apply; as time goes by

Yes, SeekerOfTruth, logic. rsho and I agreed ages back that that logic spared you and the rest of us from having to sit through World War Three, ages back.

Logic unconnected to emotion, and not integrating to supporting evidential detail, is a weak thing.

Logic connected to emotion, and integrated with supporting evidential detail, can be powerful. Often, in action, decisive.

Similar things can be said of moral statements.

I think, from the perspective of Europe in the Sixties, rsho, the remorseless military buildup of the Warsaw Pact along the West German border appeared as a clear threat to one's way of life. So I suppose fear was the dominant emotion!

The decision was made that there was no way the West could withstand an invasion by conventional means. This led inevitably to the development of the 'nuclear deterrent' principle.

And having decided the principle, it had to be thought through logically. In 18th. Century battles, officers of both sides often used to confer as to which side would fire first, like tossing a coin in cricket! But in the context of nuclear weapons, clearly, letting the other guy fire first would just amount to letting him 'win'.

Ironically, looking at the way the Russian Army performed in Afghanistan and Chechnya, NATO might possibly have been able to defeat them by conventional means. They seemed ill-trained, badly led, and demoralised before they started. Certainly, they'd have lost an awful lot of people if they had ever tried it.

But that never seems to bother the Russians.....

Tony, I don't think there was EVER any realistic risk that the Russians were going to invade -- they were outgunned, though not outnumbered, virtually all the time. We had conventional superiority essentially all through the cold war.

When their numbers looked "good" it happened because people were counting untrained troops, in poorly organized groups, against our much better trained, equipped, and organized people.

The propaganda supporting the notion of our "outnumbered, outgunned forces" was just that. It was enormously effective. But a big lie, for a long time, supported in large measure because the press was neutralized, by rules that kept it from determining what balances actually were.

Not that the Russians would have had any qualms, had we been undefended. But the fact was, we outgunned them conventionally, and outgunned them with nucs, essentially all through the cold war. The Russians did a lot of blustering, and waving about of "secret weapons" -- such as chemical and biological weapons. But they were in an essentially defensive position, on balance, all the while. And we made sure that THEY were afraid that WE were going to attack them. They were afraid of US, and we made damn sure they stayed that way.

I'm glad we won, and glad we won in the way we did. But once the Cold War ended, we should have taken steps to let Russia get back together. The horrors of Russian degeneration exist, in large part, because when we should have stopped "fighting the cold war" we didn't, and kept right on with patterns of psychological warfaren that have damaged Russian society. These days, they can't even keep drugs in stock, or organize themselves well enough that the men can find decent work.

Correction: the Russians might well have had qualms about invading us. They know what war is, all of them, in a way that our populations (especially in America) do not.

lol rshowalter. I think it was similar with the Kurds. In the sense that they were encouraged to believe in American politicians and were then left to fend for themselves!

Rshowalter: Thankyou for this thread, I love Casablanca, my favorite bit is when rick says something like

"I've got a journey to go on and where I'm going you can't come."

Any idea where they lifted that quotation from? It's older than Casablanca, and in my view it's the key to the whole movie.

Of course the West should disarm. One of the reasons that unilateral disarmament was a policy of the true left in Britain, is that it makes a moral statement. That you're doing it because it's right, and you hope others will follow the example.

But your government is under the control of criminals, as is ours. And they make a lot of money from the arms business.

When you look at America today, is there any reason not to call it, "The evil empire."

There are degrees of evil. Getting rid of nuclear weapons ought not to require virtue - certainly not sainthood --- but only sanity.

In a way though, this idea that morality is not applicable to governments or nation states has some merit. Nation states or governed peoples form systems, and in as much as the people participate in the system, they necessarily participate in a mechanical system, in which they have job which they are expected to carry out conscientously, but without resort to their own personal conscience. Cogs are not expected to think for themselves. The actions of nation states are described in human terms, X threatened Y, Y responded defensively. As very dumb machines, considerably less intelligent than we domesticated primates, nation states, are not capable of sophisticated moral responses but only of crude playground posturing.

The solution as I see it is to get rid of nation states and all the government apparatus that maintains them. I suppose someone needs to occupy power in order to stop it from being forcibly taken by criminals, but they should in no way use this power at all, except to prevent others from exercising power over others.

It is governments nation states, and military command structures that make war possible. You wouldn't have a hope of getting people into that kind of madness without them.

Maybe they're really worried about military coups if they try and get rid of the military.

Did you ever hear the story of the English civil war?

It was fought over the question of whether the king had the right to raise tax for his private army without parliament's consent.

Parliament divided for and against the king, and at the end of the day Parliament won and the king had his head chopped off.

For the next ten years or so, the Lord protector continued to raise the money in peacetime for his standing army without the consent of parliament.

And he wasn't a bad guy, for all I know.

Quotations from the universe next door;

The fact that plutonium was missing originally leaked to the press in the mid-1970s. At first there was a minor wave of panic among those given to worryijng about such matters, and there was some churlish grumbling about a government so incompetent it couldn't keep track of its own weapons of megadeath. But then a year passed, and...eventually a decade... but nothing drastic had happened.

Terran primates, being a simpleminded, sleepful race, simply stopped worrying about the subject. The triggering mechanism of the most destructive weapon ever devised on that backward planet was in unknown hands, true; but that was really not much more unsettling to contemplate than the fact that many of the known hands which had enjoyed access to plutonium belonged to persons who were not in all respects, reasonable me. (See TErran archives Ronald Raygun, bullshit artist, career of.)

The six-legged majority on Terra were never consulted when the domesticated primates set about building weapons that could destroy all life-forms on that planet. This was not unusual. the fish, the birds, the reptiles, the flowers, the tress, and even the other mammals were not allowed to vote on this issue. Even the wild primates weren't involved in the decision to produce such weapons. In fact, the majority of domesticated primates themselves never had a say in the matter.

A handful of alpha males among the leading predator bands among the domesticated primates had made the decision on their own. Everybody elsde on the planet, including the six-legged majority, who had never been involved in primate politics, just had to face the consequences.

Most of the domesticated primates of Terra did not know they were primates. They thought they were something apart from and superior to the rest of the planet.

Even the educated didn't often think of themselves as primates, and above all never understood that the alpha males of Unistat were typical leaders of primate bands. As a result of this inability to see the obvious, they were constantly alarmed and terrified by the behaviour of themselves, their friends and associates and especially the alpha males of the pack. Since they didn't know it was ordinary primate behaviour it seemed JUST AWFUL to them.

Since a great deal of primate behaviour was considered JUST AWFUL, most of the domesticated primates spent considerable energy trying to conceal what they were doing.

Some of the primates GOT CAUGHT by other primates. All of the primates lived in dread of getting caught. Those who goth caught were called no-good shits.

The term no good shit was a deep expression of primate psychology. For instance, one wild primate taught sign language by two scientist domesticated primates, spontaneously put togehter the signs for "shit" and "scientist" to describe a scientist she didn't like. She did the same for a chimpanzee she didn't like, she was calling him shit-chimpanzee.

This metaphor was deep in primate psychology because primates mark their territories with excretions , and sometimes they threw excretions at each other when disputing over territories.

Among the anal insults exchanged by DP's when fighting for their space was "UP your Ass"

When primates went to war, or got violent in other ways, they always said they were about to "knock the shit" out of the enemy.#

They also spoke of "dumping" on each other.

The primates who had mined Unistat with nuclear bombls intended to dump on the other primates REAL HARD.

Time to face up to our shit, and start dealing with it, then maybe we can leave the age of bullshit behind.

I have some sympathy with the nutter who tried to crash the aeroplane.

This man, you could say he was evil, but I reckon he was just confused, tried to kill a number of other innocent people.

But there are others, who I would call evil, who seem to be intent on crashing spaceship earth, and they call themselves sane, and they accuse the people who try to stop them of insanity, or of not living in the real world, this "real world" being an insane hell that they created, and imposed on the rest of us.;

edevershed , that's very good, very pointed writing.

There's a surreal horror to nuclear weapons - primate patterns have been applied to technical arrangements far, far beyond those for which human intellect or emotion evolved.

Britain or France could probably dismantle their nuclear 'capabilities' without much impact, one way or the other.

But if the US disarmed, and Russia didn't, is everyone quite sure that Putin or someone like him wouldn't perceive a 'wider range of possibilities'?

Also, it isn't commonly known that the main reason for the inception of the 'Manhattan Project' was that Germany was known already to be trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Anyone care to speculate on what would have happened if Hitler had had the atomic bomb, and the Allies hadn't?

Hitler didn't, and by 1944, we knew that to pretty good certainty.

But if he had had fission weapons, then the questions would have been "how many?" and "how big?" A few Hiroshima size bombs wouldn't have stopped the Allies, I don't believe. An unlmited supply of them would have.

On "America disarming its nuclear weapons without Russia doing so, or vice versa" NO ONE expects that, or has ever suggested that.

Russia has enough nukes that it COULD exterminate the US. -- and so, they have a usable force, if we had no deterrance.

And vice versa.

So, both sides need to disarm together, and the mechanics of that have to assume the emotion and distrust that are going to be there.

It is in the interest of both sides to do so.

And to take the number of weapons down so far (to hudreds or fewer) so that first strikes make no sense. If no one can reasonably go first, the situation is inherently far more stable.

Though accidents could still occur, they would not destroy human life.

rsho, with respect, you are reading history 'in the rearview mirror' a bit!

About the A-bomb, you say "Hitler didn't (have it) , and by 1944, we knew that to pretty good certainty. But if he had had fission weapons, then the questions would have been "how many?" and "how big?" A few Hiroshima size bombs wouldn't have stopped the Allies, I don't believe".

We know now that Hitler didn't have the bomb. And that the war ended in 1945. But no-one knew either of those things then.

On a personal note, I was living near London at the time, still within two hundred miles of German airfields, with V2 rockets arriving. One would have been enough for me - and, I suspect, for the Allies. A very large proportion of the Allied war effort was concentrated in and around London.

Subconsciously, I think you (and others) have a similar 'rearview' approach to the Cold War and the nuclear deterrent - "There was no WW3, therefore we didn't need it".

I happen to believe that there was a fair bit of 'cause and effect' there. In particular, as i have said several times, that politicians on both sides concluded that war was 'unthinkable' - mainly because they would also have died.

I'm afraid that that leads on to another bit of 'hard logic'. The only way of surviving a nuclear attack is to be somewhere else. So if you wish to maintain a deterrent, which is effectively based on frightening the pants off the relevant politicians, you have to have enough weapons to cover all the places they might hide.

Balkans Syndrome: Nato okayed use of uranium in the bullets that piereced tanks. Peace Keepers die throughout Europe.

The problem with nuclear thinking is that it isn't clean. Where does ecology lie in military thought processes?

Tony50, Well, that's a 'nice' logical justification for extermination.

If you have to be sure of killing the top politicians, then you have to be doubly sure of killing everybody else.

"So if you wish to maintain a deterrent, which is effectively based on frightening the pants off the relevant politicians, you have to have enough weapons to cover all the places they might hide."

Do political systems ACTUALLY work that way? I don't think so. Human beings do terrible things, but not in quite that way.

I hate to ask for mercy personally, but I'm going to ask for a little. Or beg a little pardon.

If you read back in this thread, it says something about my background. Specifically, I was set to looking for a "needle in a haystack" problem of some military consequence -- as a very young, very junior, expendable man.

One might say, an expendable and somewhat insubordinate, headstrong young man.

Well, I've found the mistake, after an inconvenient passage of time - a mistake that is 350 years old. And rather thoroughly buried. Something about the mistake, and the difficulties involved with correcting a mistake so embedded in the culture, is set out in the "Paradigm Shift - whose getting there" thread in the SCIENCE section of these Guardian TALK threads.

Now, at some risk to myself, I seem to have an actual chance of proving my case, before witnesses, and with enough engagement of major institutions that if I DO prove the case, it will make a difference. I have hopes that, if I'm right, it will propagate detonatively through the culture. If I'm wrong, I'll be in a compromised position.

A big time matter of life and death for medical reasons, and also, in terms of my own life, which matters to me, a matter of psychological and perhaps physical survival.

So I'll be moving a little more slowly on this thread, and responding with somewhat less attention, than I'd like. For a reason based on personal weakness - I'm otherwise engaged.

And for a reason of more general validity. -- If I make my case, on a matter concerning the math-physics interface for coupled physical systems, I'll speak with a louder and more credible voice on matters of defense policy.

I'd like that louder, more credible voice, because I feel that, for the survival of the world, and for moral reasons, too, nuclear weapons should come down.

Thanks, and I'm sorry I'm responding more slowly than I'd wish. Some hopeful but pressing things are upon me.

rsho, I assure you that it worked exactly that way. I still remember attending (in a junior capacity) a meeting with a group of London County Councillors in the Sixties.

They had asked for a briefing to help them with 'disaster' planning. The guy in charge of the briefing was an Intelligence major, very forthright and well-informed. He didn't tell them anything that they couldn't have read about from unrestricted sources - but he put it over beautifully.

They started off asking about the power of 'a bomb dropped on London'. He explained, of course, that we weren't talking about one - more like twenty-plus.

Then they moved on to the question of 'evacuation'. He said obviously they should plan as well as they could - but time constraints, and the effect of panic, and the limitations of the transport system, probably meant that very little could be done.

The crunch came when they asked about 'VIPs'. It was quite clear that many of them were hoping to be told where they should assemble to be airlifted out themselves. He handled it beautifully - pointing out the levels of people who had to be evacuated (starting with the Queen!), telling them helicopters take time to load, fly slowly, and would have to go a long way out - and then saying 'time will be short and there are only so many helicopters based close to the London area'.

I saw it dawn on them that there was no way they or their families were ever going to get out of London in time. Talk about a bunch of 'instant pacifists'......

So yes, it did work that way - at the lower levels of government, anyway. I said before the nukes were (are?) 'political' weapons.

You were a bit cryptic above - if you are ill, and things are approaching a 'crunch point', all the best to you.

Also, can you give me a reference point on the 'Paradigm Shift' thread? I'd like to look that up.

Tony50 - -If you go the the Science section of TALK Unlimited, and go to "Paradigm Shift- whose getting there" a good place to look would be #259-263. You might then like the poem at #264. It is about secular redemption - something the world could use more of. We need to redeem the mess we've made about nuclear weapons.

JOURNEY: poster way above: http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/chorch.htm

I said some things on the New York Times on the Web Science Missile Defense forum http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f0ce57b and was pleased to see that more distinguished people, looking at the same facts, drew similar conclusions. These conclusions were surely independent of my own. I was glad to see them expressed so well.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Editorial , The New York Times January 10, 2001

Missile Shield Illusions

"Given all the technological and budgetary uncertainties about building a missile defense system, it is hard to believe that the incoming Bush administration would be ready by March to approve groundbreaking at the first radar site. But that is what the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization seems to hope the new administration will do. Rushing ahead with this project would be a serious mistake. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/opinion/10WED3.html

I read those references, walter. Have to admit that I couldn't follow them entirely.

As far as I could see, you hope to reform world opinion by means of a process of reforming logical thought. If I'm right in that, I'm afraid that you must face up to the fact that our generation is not noted for its capacity for logical thought, even in quite high places.

And the trouble is, even if you can achieve 99.9% acceptance of the logic of your position, the 1 in 1,000 who doesn't see it your way can bring the whole thing down in ruins.

Thanks for the link Robbo, i liked this:

"Meanwhile negotiations have begun that could eliminate, or at least delay, North Korea's missile program."

Perhaps they threw a banquet for their starving!

Casa Blanca ? http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/transition0111.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_lectures/index.shtml

bbc is a wonder of the world.

Sunday, December 17, 2000

`Key Largo,' `Almost Famous,' `Unbreakable' Q. A friend tells me that in "Key Largo" (1948), Edward G. Robinson makes a speech to Bogart that is timely right now. Here's how he quotes it: "Let me tell you about Florida politicians. I make them. I make them out of whole cloth just like a tailor makes a suit. I get their name in the newspaper, I get them some publicity and get them on the ballot. Then after the election we count the votes, and if they don't turn out right, we recount them and recount them again until they do." Is this on the level? http://www.suntimes.com/index/answ-man.html

No comment here ^ from Showalter ... as yet!

Showalter's been very busy - trying to give honest credit where it is due, trying to resolve some conflicted circumstances, and trying to deal with a matter of applied mathematics that has some relevance to missile and antimissile control systems. I did take the time to post on the NYT Missile Defense thread, citing the Guardian's recent special coverage of Star Wars (the sequel) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?11@@.f0ce57b

Tony50 asked

"As far as I could see, you hope to reform world opinion by means of a process of reforming logical thought." and he pointed out difficulties with that. "I'm afraid that you must face up to the fact that our generation is not noted for its capacity for logical thought, even in quite high places."

The difficulty is not with reforming logical thought, but, most often, with asking for logic, which works well for people under emotionally neutral circumstances, to be applied under circumstances where more emotion can be in play --especially the motivation of fear.

I'm involved in a situation now, that looks like it may resolve, where the key issue, again and again, is getting around circumstances where good results are blocked by fear. Finding ways to substitute a graceful solution for one dominated by fear are essential, again and again. In my view, such solutions always must be consistent with the truth, but must alos frame that truth in a way that acknowledges, and emphasizes, the human circumstances of the people involved. Finding such solutions is partly a moral act, but to a very large extent, it is an intellectual challenge.

I heard De Bono note that people do well when they develop 'perceptively' .. (via a certain brand of thinking of course) and he set this against logical thinking as a means of achieving ends.

Is a 'Gut feeling' perception or logic - i wouldn't know.

Then there a the senses as in it has 'a nasty taste/smell about it' not forgetting 'i don't like the sound of that' and 'it was a sight for sore eyes' ... so using your 'sixth sense' please 'listen up' to De Bono, for even without logic, good and better outcomes may be achieved.

In my view, America is sick, and western culture as well, in a practical and moral sense, that may be able to improved significantly. There's a disjunction, in the culture, between

I think nuclear weapons are unbearably ugly, with the moral and practical difficulties overwhelming ugliness carries. I think that if the problems were adressed by the governments involved, with priorities explicitly clear, accomodations much better than the present ones could be worked out.

Walter:

Aren't we indulging in a bit of wishful thinking? "If" the problems were addressed... "If" the governments were more responsive... "If" human beings could better control the animal part of their nature...

Could it be that, to the countrary of some of our wishes, the way things are is precisely the way they are suppossed to be? That the only way people can maintain peace is under a threat of mutual all-out obliteration, and not by addressing problems and dealing with issues in timely and responsible manner?

MAYBE it could be that way -- but that would depend on some very specific details, wouldn't it. I think there's so much stupidity in the world, so much ineptness, and so many lies, that it CANNOT be true that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" and better solutions - sometimes, including significant times, HAVE to be possible. Especially on things that are so overwhelmingly ugly as the current nuclear impasse.

Postings 634-641 in "Missile Defense" forum, NYT http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@@.f0ce57b/701

Play it again Sam .. did she say that?

I posted this on There's Poetry -and I'm posting it here. It comes from the "hypothesis ...." thread in Europe, started by Beckvaa . It represents, we believe, a reframing of the notion of scientific theory, that, if it were adopted, might much reduce the probablility and seriousness of paradigm conflict impasses. In it, I refer to "my beloved partner." She, under a number of pseudonyms, has been my main co-author in this thread. We fell in love with each other (platonically so far - we have never so much as touched hands ) in the writing of this thread, and the paradigm thread. We hope to take the content of each of these threads further, and publish them.

rshowalter - 09:44am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#95 )

My beloved parter and I dance together in our work as partners.

Here is something we did as partners. And it shows reasons why I love her as a partner, adore her as a partner, long for her as a partner, and think she's beautiful as a partner.

WE did this.

I couldn't have done it without her.

She couldn't have done it without me.

I'm proud of it, and think it is is important.

rshowalter - 09:44am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#96 )

I'll call it, for now:

An operational definition of Good Theory in real sciences for real people. "Partnership output of a beloved lady partner, not yet named, and Robert Showalter.

In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact sciences:

"Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to the whole."

SUGGESTED DEFINITION: Good theory is an attempt to produce beauty in Heisenberg's sense in a SPECIFIC context of assumption and data.

Goodness can be judged in terms of that context,

And I think by beloved partner is beautiful, something I first felt, thinking of her as a partner.

rshowalter - 09:58am Feb 4, 2001 BST (#97)

Here's a part were I did more work than she, though she was indispensible:

To make good theory, in complex circumstances, beauty coming into focus must be judged, and shaped, in a priority ordering - and even though the priorities may be shifted for different attempts at beauty, the priorities need to be remembered, and questions of "what is beautiful" and "what ugly" have to be asked in terms of these priorities.

She has been completely indispensible, and mostly responsible, here, and has been a world intellectual leader, here, for years:

Intellectual work, and scientific work, is an effort to find previously hidden beauty , and this is what moves people, and warms people. This need for beauty must be remembered, and not stripped away.

We're hoping to be effective, and find ways to reduce nuclear threats, which we find terribly dangerous. We want the world to go on. I feel so very strongly. I'm in love.

In the Europe folder, there is a thread

"We need an international missile system now - Why "son of Star Wars" is a good idea."

started by Beckvaa that discusses nuclear dangers, and refers to this thread. Especially insert #9.

In the History folder, there's another thread, also started by Beckvaa , If Jesus were alive today . . . that refers extensively, to this thread, and the expanded notions of "the golden rule" also discussed here.

In relation to Casablanca there is Beauty and Ugliness.

The beauty has to be the Sweedish Actress Ingrid Bergman.

Within the context of the story does the beauty, herself, find 'beauty' amidst the ugliness that is outright war and destruction. She finds 'love' which is beauty ... evenso, the love is transient and has to be relinquished.

So how does this run with via the Beauty theory framework?

.. still thinking on this ?

Was love relinquished, or affirmed in the movie? -- Interesting question !

Yes, I'm still thinking on the issue.

I'll say this - depending on how you look at it, Casablanca is one of the most beautiful movies ever, of one of the most pure examples of ugliness.

I think the interesting answer is "both."

Excellent movie - but this thread full of bollocks

re-view the movie ... re-read the thread ...

In the last few days, the Missile Defense thread of New York Times on the Web Forums . . . Science has had interesting, hopeful discussions. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/727

I believe these discussions have been noticed by government officials.

This thread has been referenced.

bNice (#128) asks

"In relation to Casablanca there is Beauty and Ugliness.

"The beauty has to be the Sweedish Actress Ingrid Bergman.

" Within the context of the story does the beauty, herself, find 'beauty' amidst the ugliness that is outright war and destruction. She finds 'love' which is beauty ... evenso, the love is transient and has to be relinquished.

Yet still wrenching.

I have two questions, at the level of imagination, about the movie, considered as a real human drama.

The first is -- would there have been a solution, of any kind, that could have occurred without such trickery, without such bad faith?

I don't know the answer. I believe honesty just might have found a way - in the real world. The Paul Henreid figure, being a dominant male, could surely have been fixed up well, with some other lady, in the not too distant future -- she and the Henreid figure did not have the super-strong, romantic, passionate - compelling love that Rick made her sacrifice. So I wonder about this. Something with more disciplined beauty might have been worked out, at least in less constrained circumstances.

Though, as a tour de force of human mutual manipulation, the movie is superb.

I have another thought - and because of some circumstances of my own, have given is a good deal of thought. The question is this - what about 1946?

What would happen, and what might be graceful and right, if Rick and Elsa met again, after the war was won, with personal interests more important, and social imperatives less pressing?

I think it might have been quite a love story, and one capable of much disciplined beauty - with redemptive solutions worked out for all concerned.

Sometimes I feel that I'm in the middle of a "war" -- and I ask myself similar questions.

Sometimes I think such a movie script, or such a novel, might be an interesting thing to write.

A point essential to complex applications of the Golden Rule .

Honesty is better than deception, and honesty, with careful thought and a few conventions, can be safer than people think. In nuclear arms negotiations, we need more honesty, more openness, and fewer lies.

Generally: To live to together, in peace and prosperity, and comfort, we need more honesty, more openness, and fewer lies. We can all stay well defended, and even become better defended, if we are more open, in ways consistent with disciplined beauty as we see it, and as we expect others to see it. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1983fb/407

I referred to these things, in a place where I believe some people concerned with nuclear arms may be looking. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/750

I blame Sobel filters myself. (that's a big wink to you missile defense bod's out there ;)).

Casablanc - revisited - the movie (1946) ... way to go RS .. need new leadingActors :)

Sobel filters ... could be brand name oil filters, could be a type of misile as per cigarette?

Reflecting on Casablanc, the film may have allowed people who were 'on the move' and meeting many people for short time periods, in unusual circumstances ... to think back as to how this or that relationship may have worked out.

This may not have been the immediate intention of the film, rather, on later re-runs, it would become such a vehical.

A point re WWII was that many of the players were single people who then married ... and post war there may have been many "IF ONLY" regrets as people suspected that they had passed their "PERFECT PARTNER" by. Another aspect of WWII would be the question mark hanging over all memories ... did x or y or z live through the ordeal ... and they wouldn't know!

.... no eMail hot addresses back then ...

Morse Code was bigtime along with big band music ... wonder how a morse coded love letter would have gone down in Casablanca .- a dot and a dash then a dash with a dot -. only good 'spellers' would be in on the plot!

Love's Labour Lost.

Nuclear war would be worse than anything the Germans did in WWII. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f0ce57b

New York Times on the Web Forums .... Science Missile Defense #690.

Don't miss #s 691 and 691, by Edevershed ! These give perspective on the insanity of our nuclear circumstances, and makes the key point that we are primates, and part of nature. Primates with somewhat surprising traits that can make horror happen, and make the fight against horror difficult - because of the irrational but very powerful tendency of people to obey authority even at the expense of human decency.

Stanley Milgram's experiment http://www.cba.uri.edu/Faculty/dellabitta/mr415s98/EthicEtcLinks/Milgram.htm ought to be required reading for all trying to form judgements about the probable "rationality" of our current nuclear arrangements.

"Rational man" assumptions, which exist all through our rationale for nuclear policy, don't match the primate facts of human existence.

The mechanical traits described in this thread, combined with the powerful human impulse to obey authority - and to convert people to "others" - requires careful, wary thinking, and action, if we are make decisions good enough for the world to survive.

Many more citations along these lines:

New York Times on the Web Forums Science ...... Missile Defense http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f0ce57b

Here are other references relevant to how willing we ought to be to say

..."the authorities say trust us so we should surely trust them. "

The (11) references below (more, available through a hotkey) were gathered by Dawn Riley and posted on this (NYT MD) thread #317-322

http://www.edhelper.com/shakespeare_5.htm

Note that there is a trend towards people being 'encouraged to think for themselves' which should improve the moral outlook from Nations that have an emphasis on 'fairness' for all.

I have the priviledge of posting a sermon, When the Foundations are Shaking by Dr. James Slatton of the River Road Church (Baptist) in Richmond, Va. - a church I grew up in, a church where my parents have both been deacons, and active in other ways. This church is much like the one Jimmy Carter goes to, theologically, though it is much richer, and more republican, and perhaps basically more conservative. River Road Church has resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention, for various reasons, but is well within the conservative Protestant tradition. I have deep intellectual, moral, and personal respect for the people at River Road Church.

I believe that most people of good will, including exalted ones, could benefit from the 21 minutes this sermon takes.

WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE SHAKING ..... by James Slatton . . . . available in RealMedia, Quicktime, and Windows Media7 formats http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html

I think any military leader, or political leader, who ever attends any kind of religious service, anywhere in the world, could relate to this work.

I think any member of the clergy, of any faith or creed, anywhere in the world, could relate to this work. I wish religious people in a position of leadership WOULD listen to it.

People of a more secular view might want to skip ahead to 9:27 in the sermon . Thereafter, it is a tribute to a Russian colonel, who kept nuclear war from destroying us all, during the Reagan administration. And a teaching of lessons that most people know, and live well by, that are important to the preservation of our world. I believe that people of enough good will to be human would be interested, and moved, by this part of the sermon, no matter how secular their views.

The notion is abroad that no politician can do much about nuclear weapons, because they cannot get their populations behind them. They think so because, when people are surveyed, no one wants to talk about nuclear weapons.

This is the wrong answer. To deal with this threat, people in a position to influence events must face it. So the matter has to be realistically discussed.

James Slatton's sermon offers a triumphant example of how possible and practical such realistic discussion is.

I wish there could be many more examples.

What would Rick - Casablanca - have done were he given an order to 'press a button of destruction'?

I HOPE I know the answer. But a lot of people obey orders.

How so?

People obey orders because it is a reflex.

Because they think that it is the right thing to do.

and

It sometimes happens that a person feels he has to make moral decisions for himself (or herself).

I've been doing extensive work and postings with Dawn Riley here on the Guardian Talk boards, but also in the NEW YORK TIMES --- Science forum Missile Defense.

Because I hope it may interest some readers here, because of concern for the issues, and in part because of concern for my person, I am posting this summary of that work here.

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 1)

My involvement with the Missile Defense thread began with (#266) Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, this year or next year. What would have to happen? http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/286

for the rest of that day, I had a discussion with "becq" , who I believe was President Clinton, ending at #304, which is worth reading in itself ... http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/324

There's much else, involving careful argument and hard work, but it makes sense to pick up the thread more recently, when it became clear, again, that there might be an opening fit for the practical large scale reduction, or elimination, of nuclear weapons. Key passages are set out and hotkeyed here, but I'm proud of the text in between, as well.

#640 - Is nuclear disarmament something so far outside the real of the possible so that it is kind of foolish to have a debate on something you cant do anything about ? No one need doubt the importance of dealing with the other clear and present dangers. But is nuclear disarmament - actually undiscussable, beyond the pale? Plenty of able people, including senior military people, favor nuclear disarmament http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/703

#374 - Signatories of the Global Security Institute appeal as of October 2, 2000 seem well worth listing, because I find the list hopeful: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/412

#664 _ An operational definition of Good Theory in real sciences for real people. and it applies to good military doctrine (which is military theory, built to use.). http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/731

#668: I set out an attempt at a beautiful solution to nuclear disarmament on this thread, #266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am . . . I think that suggestion adresses the valid concerns Dirac raises. It tries to. Perhaps the suggestion might provide ideas for a solution that would work. After that, I had a dialog with "becq" , who I believed at the time, and still believe, was William Jefferson Clinton. beckq 9/25/00 9:19am That discussion continued, taking all may attention, and, I believe, much of his, until the evening. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/735

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 2)

#679: Before the ugliness of nuclear terror can be well resolved, we'll have to come to terms with how afraid the Russians are of us, and how they are afraid, and also how afraid we are of the Russians, and how we are afraid of them. . No matter what anybody says, or how anybody poses (or what anybody says, however sincerely) both sides are fundamentally, deeply terrified of first strike tricks. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/746

#686: I made a proposal for getting nuclear weapons down rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am that depends, in large part, on an insight from cryptography. Encoding in clear can be safe, and under circumstances of distrust, can be essential. With my partner, Dawn Riley, we did a demonstration. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/753

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 3)

#690: Nuclear war would be worse than anything the Germans did in WWII. "Populations with competent militaries know everything they have to in order to support what is done. In the same way, Americans, and especially Americans responsible for military action, must know - must be responsible for, the risks they take with atomic weapons. In the world we live in, these weapons may be necessary - the most beautiful accomodations must be the ones that fit reality, and are the best, in terms of clear, reasonable, humane priorities, that they can be. But it is ugly , and immoral in the extreme, to avoid procedures that get right answers that can be checked. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/757

#691-692" A beautiful essay by Dawn Riley: Quotations from the universe next door: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/758

#709-711: I'm working with a model system, important in itself, big enough to be realistic, showing how the most essential aspects of this impasse can be solved. The objective is to make a major change in a field of science, and to do so preserving infrastructure. To do so with an absolute minimum of casualties - perhaps with no casualties. To do so smoothly, in such a way that nothing goes "bang" ..... (a desireable objective, I feel, where nuclear weapons are concerned.)

In my view, things are going breathtakingly well on this test case.

"My own view, now, is that we may be in the middle of the cleanest, neatest, fairest, most beautiful, most bloodless resolution of a paradigm conflict in the history of science. That would be something we could all be proud of, and, in my opinion, might set a precedent that would be of long service to the United States of America." http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/777

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 4)

#714-715: "The big picture." : How do our military arrangements look, in terms of what our military is supposed to do for our country, and for the world? .......And in terms of the totality of United States interests, and values, in the world? .......Beauty in context. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/783

#734_737: CHECKING FACTS: We aren't set up well to check facts. And the most basic fact, that we are ignoring, is this:

Distrust and nuclear weapons go together. That's an inescapable fact. Fear levels, and human nature dictate that "in general." The historical facts reinforce the general tendency with irresistable force. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/805

#740-742: Key references, hotkeyed to sources elsewhere on the internet http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/965 are set out in GUARDIAN TALK threads.

I believe that everybody concerned about matters of defense, and especially nuclear deployments, should consider carefully the concerns about the “military-industrial complex” set out in the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm With circumstances that appear to show a disproportion and operational mismatch between means and ends, the speech seems to me to raise issues of crucial importance today.

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 5)

KEY QUOTE: #748: To reduce threats, one needs to apply assurances that, in limited ways, for limited times, weapons are not going to be used.

It is a FACT that the Russians, as a nation, feel that they have been, and still are, subject to an active first strike threat from the United States, and this fact can be checked.

If one thinks about the Golden Rule, and applies it to the Russians, one has to remember this. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/822

#757: I feel that issues of morality deserve special emphasis in a discussion of nuclear costs. Moral damage has all sorts of costs, in quality of life and straight economic terms, because the complex cooperations of productive business are, so often, based on predictablity and trust. Therefore, moral inconsistency can be expensive. I suspect that a major problem, in most underdeveloped countries, involves such inconsistencies. I don't see how anyone, or any nation, can adopt a "first use of nucear weapons" policy, and maintain a moral consistency - it seems to me that our nuclear policies are corrosive to our whole moral and intellectual life. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/831

Summary of postings, Sept 25, 2000 to March 1, 2001 (part 6)

People interested in religion and ethics may be particularly interested in #792-797, http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/867 which begins: ..... Tina Rosenberg represents one of the most admirable flowerings of a tradition, admirable in many ways, that , taken no further than she takes it, makes an effective nuclear disarmament impossible. Rosenberg believes .... People need to know what was actually done. ...That's surely right.

But what was to be done with the facts?

. .. . .

Something was missing from the book, and the situations it described.

In the complex, conflicted situations described, beautiful justice is impossible. There are multiple contexts, each inescapable and in a fundamental sense valid.

An aesthetically satisfying justice can be defined for each and every set of assumptions and perspectives that can be defined. But there are too many sets of assumptions and perspectives that cannot be escaped in the complex circumstances that are actually there. . . .. .. . .

The situations Rosenberg describes, where she hungers for justice, do not admit of satisfactory justice. They are too complicated. . . . . . What is needed, for logical reasons that are fundamentally secular rather than religious, is redemption. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/867

On 1 march, I closed this summary as follows:

Postings thereafter include some explict TECHNICAL reasons, why we need to be afraid, and need to do the hopeful, practical thing -- which is to GET RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Since March 1, there have been about a hundred additional postings.

I believe that the stakes are high for the world http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/895 , and of course the stakes are high for me personally.

But militarily, it is also going to be different.

Issues of deception are a central concern, and I believe that they now threaten the survival of the world. They are also of concern, when issues of dereliction of duty, and actual fraud, are discussed. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/941

The Clintons, in an unguarded moment, spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy." I don't know that any such conspiracy exists, of course -- but sometimes things happen that don't seem to make any sense -- and here would be a motivation for such a conspiracy, and a source of BIG SCALE money for it.

Anywhere else in government, journalists assume that powers that go unsupervised will eventually be corrupted. They're matter of fact about this - as Menken was. Why the assumption hasn't been ubiquitous in reporters looking at the defense industry, I surely don't know.

From #885 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/965 to #892 is set out an example, with discussion, using the Gaurdian threads, both with hotkeys and without, to illustrate some new vulnerabilities that our nuclear weapons, which were most fundamentally designed in the 1950's, are not designed to take into account.

Today, in #920 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/965 I spoke of

"The surreality of the sitution- the action, over long duration, of American officials, against reasonable United States interests, in combination with elaborate deceptions -- CAN be interpreted by vulnerable nations (including Russia and China) as U.S. preparation for wars of conquest. Russia and China have acted on that belief, against their interests and their own. The costs in human lives and opportunity has been especially great in Russia - the cost in opportunities in China is likely to be great - and the risks of destruction of the world, already great, increase from such escalatory responses.

I DO NOT believe that the US has any corporate intention to invade Russia or China, or any other large country, or to attack any country with nuclear weapons.

I'll be continuing with this. Because I hope it may interest some readers here, and also because I feel the need for you to know, I am posting this here.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1005 ends: "A strong circumstantial case for massive fraud and deception, involving massive violation of trust and law, is constructable now."

"It is possible to show, now, beyond reasonable question, that the means for this have been in place, and that, unless you happen to defer to the ethical purity of the people involved, massive fraud, including very large conflicts of personal interest close to the current administration, are consistent with the facts."

Concerns about Missile Defense, and nuclear disarmament, are crucial here. With Dawn Riley, I've done very extensive work on this, in many TALK threads, and in a NYT Science forum thread - Missile Defense . . . . . . . . set out in #153-162, this thread, with many hotkeys to that NYT thread.

A basic point is that classified military expenditures are NOT REALLY SUBJECT TO CLEAR ACCOUNTING --- and so are subject to the possibility of MASSIVE fraud. ---- enough, over 50 years, to subvert the whole economy.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1011 " Now, we all know the standard usages of "front operations. . . . If one assumes those usages, what might be done with an enterprise such as the Carlyle Group , or a number of similar investment businesses?

"one could do a great deal. . . How much would a substantial change in military policy change the current market value of Carlyles equity (currently about 3.5 billion.) ? . . . . Relatively minor changes might cut that equity by 2/3 or more. . . .. James Baker's share of that equity may be of the order of 180 million dollars. The share of the current presidents father is likely to be substantial, as well.

"These influential people have very direct, and very specific monetary interests in military policy. They may have other interests and liabilities at stake, as well. . . . . Their interests are broad, and many --

H"ow fast, within such a structure, would it be possible to convey information untraceably, or move money nobody knew they had?

"How fast could you motivate a change in oil supply or price? How untraceably? How easily?

"How fast could you buy a baseball team? How untraceably? How easily?

Fast..... Untraceably. .......Easily.

This isn't proof -- it is leads -- with motive, means, and opportunity. A lot of "coincidences" could be explained.

Especially in the last two days,there are discussions with "almarst2001 --- who I believe to be an influential Russian, possibly Vladimir Putin.

Highlights: 925: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1010 "China and Russia are afraid that the US is preparing a first strike, or preparing to to invade them -- because they can imagine no other explanation for what is being done.

"And so they assume the worst.

"They ought to imagine another explanation. A combination of a snafu, a "good" policy that involved so many lies that no one knew how to turn it off, and a fraud.

"From the point of view of Russia, China, and many other countries -- how comforting that thought should be !

"I'll be posting soon with more details -- enough to assist in the imagination -- an attempt at disciplined beauty to replace "explanations" that are so ugly and disproportionate that they don't seem to make sense to anyone.

_*_*_**_*_

953: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1038

956: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1041 "It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished Goals:

"Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

"Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

"work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

closing last night: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1052

"Historically, presidents left a power vacuum in American nuclear policy, and people like LeMay and his proteges, and people in the CIA, and some contractors, filled it. And now, that conspiracy, long past any legitimate usefulness, and long since financially corrupt, is menacing the peace of the whole world, and imposing huge costs on innocent people.

Vacuums always get filled, but, does the American Public or world Public have any controls ?

They need to be established, because the current situation is so dangerous, and corrupt.

Since March 13 there have been another 650 postings on the NYT Missile Defense threads -- many involving a person who may be well connected in Russian government circles. Perhaps we're getting closer to a time when some idea such as that of #164 can be brought to fruition -- and even to a point where real peace and security can become a reality.

Are there any cassablanca type players in the current USA higher profile figures?

Interesting question!

So, Are there any cassablanca type players in the current USA higher profile figures?

I've been so active on the NYT thread that I havent' been here -- but I've been referring to this thread, again and again, in contexts Russians and Americans are, I believe, watching, and this thread has been, and is being, influential. I hope it can be kept.

Here are places, in the New York Times Missile Defense thread, where I've hotkeyed this thread --

286: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/306

329: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/353

509-510: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/559

679-681: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/746

740: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/811

750: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/824

794: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/869

816: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/892

885: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/965

888: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/968

891: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/971

955: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1040

968: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1056

995: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1083

1482: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1600

1484: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1602

1693: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1821

1794: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1928

1827: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/1969

1925: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2073

2066: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2227

I believe that the story this thead tells may have a useful effect on negotiating processes involving nuclear weapons, and deeply appreciate the Guardian for making this space possible.

I believe that anyone who clicks the links above will see how important this thread is, to me at least, and how central it is to arguments that Dawn Riley and I are making.

I think that this thread and a similar one in the NYT could be the most significant threads I have come across in the three weeks since I introduced myself to talk boards.

I'm going to make a real effort to read these threads and to try to understand what rshowalter is saying. All I can say at this point is that I think something important might be being discussed here, and I really don't want to miss out.

Plus, I'm interested in National Missile Defense.

There's tangible progress in the mutual practice of "the golden rule" between the US, Russia, and other countries

U.S.-Russia Relationship Warms Up a Bit by Jane Perlez http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/world/13DIPL.html

"How do you create a system of international ethics that is transcultural?

Efforts to do that are pressing forward -- and I hope this thread, and other work on the TALK, are part of that. I'm continuing, sometimes with feelings of hope, in the NYT Missile Defense thread (much more material, since 176 above) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2410 ( there are 105 more messages -- many that I feel the posters have reason to be proud of, that are being attended to, I believe, in both the US and Russia. )

There are now 315 entries since http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2410 -- and I feel progress is being made.

A very good piece in today's NYT on "the father of the H bomb" -- and "missile defense" -- Edward Teller

Who Built the H-Bomb? Debate Revives by WILLIAM J. BROAD http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/science/24TELL.html

Teller wouldn't make a movie star name ... sounds too much like a bank clerk ... in his counting house a-counting-out his money. Never heard of the guy is he rich and famous or infamous?

Teller's infamous -- and has made a lot of people rich -- including an old investor of mine, who lived in a very nice 25 million dollar house in California -- money made, very quickly, in the nuclear weapon manufacturing business.

How can there be a lot of money in 'uselessness' ?

From the ref above:

""

Dick understood physics," Dr. Rosenbluth said, "and certainly produced the embodiment that was actually constructible."

He added that Dr. Garwin was virtually unique at Los Alamos in his ability to bridge gaps between experts in different fields.

"I was a pure theorist, and there were a lot of experimental engineering types, but there weren't many people able to serve as a link between the two," Dr. Rosenbluth said. Dr. Garwin was probably the project's intellectual glue, tying many ideas into the successful device, he said.

""

Additional to this i was struck by the fact that the bomb was tested, above ground, on an island, obliterating and contaminating it!

If 'Dick' was such a good 'all rounder' .. it's a pity he didn't have foresight!

He may have had neither more nor less moral standing than the many "missileers" who stand ready, on orders, to end the world still today.

Also posted on http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1e4c5b/74

Reader Discussion: 'One Awful Night in Thanh Phong'

I'm grateful for the chance to post on these threads.

In these Guardian Talk threads and in the NYT Missile Defense thread, Dawn Riley and I have worked to focus patterns of human reasoning and persuasion, and problems with human reasoning and persuasion.

These citations deal with that: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2758 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2759 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2760

We believe that controversies that could not be resolved before may be resolvable now.

The techniques we (and so many other people on the net) are using to get things to closure are the same techniques that often work in well conducted jury trials.

Perhaps we're too optimistic, but we feel that, in small part because of our efforts, and in large part due to the wonderful resources of the Guardian Observer that we've been grateful to use, the risk of nuclear destruction may be coming down.

At least sometimes, we get that happy feeling.

American opinion may, alas, probably will, have to lag opinion outside America on issues here. That makes the Guardian Observer , which is respected all over the world, an especially vital force.

People and things need to be checked, and some things can be. Sometimes some progress gets made. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3077

The missile defense thread at the NYT goes on, and is being very productive. I believe that we are seeing a glimmer of a situation where real nuclear disarmament may be achievable, and to me, of much more immediate important, the current large risk of world destruction may be nearly eliminated.

Here is an interesting citation that Dawn Riley found: http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html

This thread is perhaps the most influential Dawn Riley and I have written --- I think there is good reason to believe that it has influenced thought and action.

I'm posting this note in Guardian Threads I'm personally very interested in, as a matter of pride, and to keep them current.

The New York Times - Science - MISSILE DEFENSE thread would total about ten 1 1/2' looseleaf notebooks by now. I summarized it, in a way you might find interesting, and could read quickly, in 3532: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3791 , which reads in part:

"We've had outstanding contributors -- who have furthered discussion by taking a special "stand-in" role.

I believe that the Guardian-Observer , and The New York Times , using the new possibilities of the internet, are making real world progress possible. Dawn Riley and I are trying to participate in some of that.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4045 reads:

I feel that a great deal of progress has been made since gisterme's debut #2997: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3218

....and my response to gisterme's direct question ... #2999: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3220 .

Especially since gisterme's 3319 - http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3563

..to which I responded in .. 3327-3328 : http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/3571 with the citation http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan

We've come long way since - common ground is being established, differences are being clarified, thoughts and ideas are coming into focus.

Dawn Riley and I believe that, especially with the augmented memory of the internet, controversies that could not be resolved before may be resolvable now.

2565: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2758

2566: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2759

2567: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/2760

It seems to me that the NYT Missile Defense thread, and the wonderful threads here, contain steps toward showing that.

I've been heartened by how much progress is being made in these thread -- even in the four days, and 235 posting, since #3532 - .

A lot has changed about the prospects for world peace and world nuclear safety in the last 100 days, and not all of it is bad, by any means. If we're more scared than before, and more frustrated, that could be all to the good -- some people are paying attention.

http://www.tripletsrus.com/80s/lyrics/higgins-key.txt

again and again !

In NYT Missile Defense #3839 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4115 almarst_2001 , our "Putin-Stand in" asked a key question - and in context, it is an example of good faith, and of difficulties to be faced:

Robert,

This thread, particularly, is effecting the discourse.

Working towards less terror -- and using concepts worked out on this thread -- work on the NYT MD thread continues.

Many citations from Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? Guardian Talk , Science, are cited, and are playing a crucial part, in dialog on the NYT Missile Defense thread that appears to be involving representatives of governments.

MD 4048: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4334

MD4050: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b

I deeply appreciate Guardian Talk -- and anything Dawn and I are lucky enough to accomplish will be, in large part, due to the the wonderful resources and readers here.

If in the film Casablanca, had she stayed with Rick (Bogart), and the film is influential, would the second half of the past century have played out differently?

Maybe more gracefully. Not that it was THAT influential.

Last weekend, I went to a small scientific meeting, and discussed both missile defense issues and some personal science. What I displayed is discussed and linked at NYT-Science- Missile Defense MD 4080-4081 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4366

I was pleased with the meeting. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4411 Paradigm conflicts are resolving on the scientific side. Some of the social-psychological-institutional conditions for workable discussions on reduction of nuclear risks seem to me to be promising.

Partly because they fit the MD discussions, I've reposted parts of an old thread started by Beckvaa -- "If Jesus Was Alive Today" in Detail and the Golden Rule -- Guardian Talk, Issues , and discuss it a little in MD 4159 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4456

I'm hopeful. And also very thankful for the Guardian Talk community.

It seems to me that paradigms are shifting .

If the information here were more widely known, and faced, in the USA and the world, much good would follow, and much deception and misfortune avoided.

CIA's Worst-Kept Secret by Martin A. Lee May 16, 2001 http://www.consortiumnews.com/051601a.html

Putting Your Faith in Science? by GINA KOLATA http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/weekinreview/27KOLA.html is, I believe, a fine contribution to the culture. What it says reinforces, and reinforces strongly, the arguments Dawn Riley and I have been making, about the need for checking , in Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? Guardian Talk, Science .

Kolata's piece, which makes essential arguments beautifully, and takes them into the mainstream culture with a grace I could never muster, and from the commanding position of the NYT Week In Review, ought to make a dent in many minds. It ends:

" Dr. McDonald said he wrote a paper 18 years ago that concluded that the placebo effect did not exist. But, he said, the New England Journal of Medicine rejected the manuscript, saying that everyone knew the effect existed. The paper was eventually published, in Statistics in Medicine. But he met with such disbelief that he gave up even talking about his findings.

MD4210: rshowalter "Missile Defense" 5/25/01 6:04pm http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4510

so, Americas' favourite movie was not 'that' influential ... do movies follow culture or lead it?

substitute 'art' for 'movies'

Both.

American politics is shifting in ways where much in this thread is likely to become "common ground." There's progress. I'm grateful for this thread.

Interesting that the 'right' is dying out in the UK, Australia, and now USA. There's a shift to middle ground. The old right parties are so 'out of touch' the voters are jacking up and jumping ship! Parties have a life ... the right wingers are time warped to the past .. and are the natural parties to die ... as time goes .......... bye!

Noted that Casablanca sits on the same time line as London ... interesting .. never thought of them sharing the same longitude ... how many 'distinct cultures' can there be on a longitude .. mulling this over .. :)

In various ways the Bush administration, though pressing ahead, is also acknowledging its ignorance and pressing ahead. That's a sign that thought patterns are shifting -- perhaps for the better.

Thoughts about getting more good done, and less bad, using internet discourse.

MD4532 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4839

Psycho - top US horror film ... of all time!

Bush looks for 'common ground' in Europe .. which sees the Sheild topping the horror ratings.

This thread is the single most important TALK thread for discussions of military balances and peace, and I deeply appreciate the chance I've been given to post here. .

Since Missile Defense 4433 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/4839 there have been 906 postings.

The NYT forums have now reinstalled a search function, after a long time -- and it seems to be the same one the Guardian uses, with search page lengths the same as in these TALK threads.

The NYT Missile Defense thread is being extensively used, and discussion and controversy are continuing. Main contributers are:

almarst_2001, previously almarstel2001 who, since March 5 has acted as a "Putin stand-in" in the Missile Defense forum, and shows extensive connections to literature, and to Russian government ways of thought.

gisterme , who since May 2nd has acted as a "Senior Bush administration advisor stand in" who shows some plausible connections to the Bush administration.

Posters ( beckq , cookies ) who, according to the dialog, are the same poster, who I'd interpret as "stand-ins" for former President Clinton since August 2000

Me, and Dawn Riley, who have been arguing for improved communication, and as much nuclear disarmament as possible within the imperatives of military balances, since September 25, 2000

Counting search pages, for characters, gives some sense of the participation. Here are the number of search pages for these posters:

Putin stand-in, Almarst --- 55 search pages.

Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme ----- 35 search pages

Clinton stand-in, beckq, or cookies2 ----- 7 search pages

Dawn Riley - - - - 85 search pages

Robert Showalter - - - - 166 search pages.

I've contributed the most words to the MD thread, and Dawn the most citations and the most connection to the news.

But the involvement of the "stand-ins" has been very extensive, too, represents an enormous work committment on thier part, and their postings are, I think, very impressive. The involvement of these "stand-ins" continues. I believe that their work has assisted in the focusing of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about how to make contact with each other before.

The thread is an ongoing attempt to show that internet usages can be a format for negotiation and communication, between staffed organizations, capable of handling more complexity, with more clarity and more complete memory, than could happen otherwise.

I believe that is something relatively new, in need of development, and clearly needed.

I feel that progress is being made, and that impasses that were intractable before may be more tractable now.

These Guardian threads are more flexible than the NYT threads, and stylistically freer. Many of the ideas at play in the MD thread originated and were focused here, and these TALK threads are extensively cited in the Missile Defense thread. For discussing an idea, over under around and through, these TALK threads are the most impressive place for discourse that I have ever seen, and I appreciate them very much.

Work on the New York Times ... Science ... Missile Defense thread continues.

MD5913 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6329 includes this:

" If one looks at the history of the Cold War, I believe that this issue of auditing becomes a central one -- some VERY agressive patterns, VERY different from the patterns of personal kindness and tolerance widely distributed among Americans, have been VERY well funded, and well protected, and surprisingly unquestioned, since the 1950's.

If one wants to see the enormous usefulness of the Guardian TALK section for the NYT Missile Defense thread, go to the thread, and search "guardian" -- there are 14 search page (the same size as TALK search pages) of citations - and I'm personally grateful to be able to make those citations.

There have been 461 postings since MD5917 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6333 , some that seem important to me.

MD6370 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/6843

MD6371 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@@.f0ce57b/6853

tell a story, from my own perspective, about the Cold War, and plans to end it with which I became involved.

This thread continue to be useful. How grateful I am for the Guardian-Observer !

I was glad, on July 4th, our Independence Day , to have a chance to post some of the things I feel are important for the welfare of the US, UK, and the world, in these postings, many of which include other links:

MD6549 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7056

MD5450 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7057

MD6551 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7058

MD6552 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7059

MD6553 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7060

MD6554 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7061

MD6555 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7062

MD6556 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7063

Some who've followed my work may find the background interesting.

I'm posting them here, because I hope some may find them interesting, and because I feel that the more people read them, and the more widely this information is spread, the safer the world may be, and the safer I may be personally.

Progress is continuing on the NYT Missile Defense board, and I've got hopes that, with the help of Dawn Riley, and some others, we may make a positive difference for peace.

And this got to be about NMD...how? and why?

I thought from the title of the thread this was the return of BritCraria (who seems to have gotten published if http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966891627/ is anything to go by).

I'm terrified of having to hear film students discuss 'Casablanca' ever again.

Missile Defense is a continuation of the Cold War -- and largely psychological warfare -- since so much of it is based on lies.

Why is it that Euros think that Missile Defense has to do with the Cold War?

bay of pigs

Since July 4th, The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense forum has had 611 postings - many extensive. These include useful comments from almarst , our "Putin stand in", and gisterme , our "Bush administration high official stand-in."

Has the thread been influential? Worth the trouble? As successful as I'd hoped?

Perhaps yes, on all these points, though the work seems inconclusive in some ways. In the end, I'm hoping to set out many arguments, like a case to a jury, subject to crossexamination, and then "pick a fight" - in some way that can work in public -- to establish truths that remain, so far "somehow too weak." The case is far along. On the MD thread, and many other places. Getting to a place where a fight in public is possible is not far along -- though progress toward that goal may not be so far away.

MD7097 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7767 .. includes high praise for the Guardian-Observer , and especially its interactive specials, including

Does Starwars work? http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/bush/flash/0,7365,434805,00.html

I deeply appreciate the fact that these talk boards are here -- and am grateful for the existence of the Guardian - Observer

.

There have been 262 postings on The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense thread since July 18th, and I believe that things have gone well - and hopefully.

Dawn and I have worked hard.

Postings that may interest some of you start with this:

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right . . .

I know that I've posted a lot here, but I'd like to ask some help from any Talk folks who might be interested. I've felt, for a long time, that it should be possible to check the crucial technical issues involved with the US Missile Defense programs, in public, on the basis of what's known in the open literature. And, by doing so, show that, whatever one may think of them as strategic programs, they are also deeply flawed technically.

I've been under some pressure about that, but have also gotten a good deal of attention - perhaps including some attention from people associated with governments. Perhaps some of you may be interested in some aspects of that, as background, set out in the following links.

MD6808 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/7376

mrshowalter@thedawn.com

Maybe a little less terror -- if work keeps on, and facts get faced.

U.S., Russian Defense Officials Meet By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/news/AP-US-Russia.html includes this from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. and Russian defense officials are meeting behind closed doors at the Pentagon to explore the prospects for an agreement on building missile defenses and cutting nuclear forces.

. . . . . "

" Rumsfeld said there are psychological barriers to creating a new security relationship with Russia.

"``There is an awful lot of baggage left over in the relationship, the old relationship, the Cold War relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union,'' he said.

" ``It is baggage that exists in people's minds, it exists in treaties, it exists in the structure of relationships, the degree of formality of them,'' he added. ``And it will require, I think, some time to work through these things and see if we can't set the relationship on a different basis.''

One doesn't have to approve of everything Rumsfeld has done, or even much of it, to be glad that, as a leader and working politician, he said these words. It means that many people, including military people, have these words in mind. Perhaps some things can get better.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8686

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8687

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8688

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8689

Perhaps we'll even come to some technical clarity -- something I hope for. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8694

To really end the Cold War, the United States would have to work itself through some fictions, and Russia would have to do so as well. That may take a while, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggests

But perhaps some limited progress is being made, and more can be made, as more and more people draw reasonable conclusions from facts.

Many of those facts well reported in the Guardian Observer.

And just for beauty, and appreciation of good things, some nice sites found by Dawn Riley: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8644

Showalter - it's quiet - one assumes you've gone to Casablanca :) see these http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/roguestate/default.htm http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1995/msg00099.html Plutonium: USA : http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/11/national/11PLUT.html

Didn't get to Casablanca -- but did have some interesting time in Washington.

This might work.

MD7935 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8873

MD7936 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8874

The proposal, for checking of key technical points by professional engineers, with writers of PE exams serving as umpires, would involve some action by people with some power and independence. I've had contacts with such people that may be promising. On matters central to world peace, and balances, there should be "islands of fact" that all concerned are morally and socially bound to respect. Hard to get, but perhaps not impossible.

MD7940 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8880

MD7944 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8884

Some things about military balances and security procedures in general could use some review.

MD7950-7951 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8891

A nice quote from Envisioning Information by Eward Tuftie and some illustration and explanation jobs I'm hoping to help get done.

MD 8211 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9196

It seems to me that the world is polarizing. That makes this a dangerous time. But a hopeful one, as well.

This thread continues to be influential, I believe.

Here is some great coverage: The Fortunes of Russia and China, as Told Through the Pages of The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010902mag-china-russia.html

The New York Times is a major source of information about missile defense. Discussion of that corpus, and the complexity, richness, and challenge of it, and link to many articles on missile defense that have been discussed on this thread. Listings of missile defense articles in the NYT, with working no-charge links MD8309 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9296 MD8310 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9297

Colin Powell, and his TIME magazine cover story MD8392 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9389

Some history, going back almost a year now, that may interest some who have been following the MD thread, and wondered about barriers to news coverage in the United States. It includes events set out in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? #163 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7b085/193 . MD8393-8395 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9391

We shouldn't miss what even a monkey could see: MD8289 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9276

On issues of military and nuclear balances, "no solution as stated:" ... We need a reframing: MD8300-3 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9287

Perhaps it is important that the "word" of the United States, and of US military officers, comes to be discounted -- and senses of obligation to the United States, among, allies, come to be diluted with mistrust. . . . the rest of the world has to stop deferring to the US, or being intimidated in every way by the US, and handle their own responsibilities themselves. MD8317-8318 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9304

Perhaps, along with all the things there are to fear, there are reasons for hope. If some "islands of technical fact" could be established, I believe that things might go a great deal better. MD8343 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9330

This thread continues to be essential.

Since September 4th there have been 400+ postings on the MD thread.

A few may interest some people here. I'm grateful for the chance to post links here, for the record.

Postings dealing with the current tragedy in New York and Washington, and its relations to larger risks, involve postings Dawn Riley and I have done on these wonderful Guardian Talk threads: MD8827 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9894

Points were raised by gisterme , the MD board's "Bush administration stand in" that led me to repost Detail and the Golden Rule here: MD8737 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9788 MD8743 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9796

I made the point that American institutional and intellectual traditions, shaped by the Cold War, may be standing in the way of safety now, in

MD8698 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/9742 .

The Big Terrible by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html

MD9374 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10511

To cooperate, we must act on the basis of ideals that work for our friends, and that can convert many people, against us now, to our side. To do that, we have to be the good guys.

As a species, we are beautiful, but ugly, too.

MD9388 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10528 .

<a href="/WebX?14@@.ee8de48/13">powys ""You are either with us, or against us." - George W." Fri 21/09/2001 18:56</a>

International Gu Threads You are either with us or against us .. post 14

Operation Infinite Justice ? Wouldn't a more appropriate title be Operation Casablanca ? Not because of the vaguely arabic connection but because of the line about just rounding up the usual suspects.

There have been 430 postings on the NYT Missile Defense Board since I last posted here, and since this posting, which cites a number of warning references posted on the Guardian: MD9421 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10566

Dawn Riley and I have done most of them, but there have been many interesting ones from almarst and gisterme , people we have reason to think are associated with the Russian and US governments.

In MD9757 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11037 I made the hopeful point that

in very complex systems, patterns of solutions that exist and seem at all satisfactory, within a system of constraints, are likely to be few or unique. And often easy for people to think about and focus on in ways where they all agree.

I believe that, terribly unfortunate as the WTC and Pentagon tragedy-crimes were, they have given political actors a sense of urgency and reality that may be very useful. My own view is that with more discussion, and checking of key facts, some of the ugliest and most dangerous messes in the world could be handled much better.

The world is interconnected, and one issue recurs with monotonous, but deadly serious regularity.

It is that sequences where lies are involved are likely to go wrong in ugly, expensive, unjust, unpredictable ways.

MD9808 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11103

MD9809 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11104

MD9810 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11105

This isn't much reading, and perhaps some who looked at these pieces would find them boring. But perhaps some might be interested. I'm posting them on the off-chance that some people of responsibility, directly or indirectly, might find them interesting.

The NYT Missile Defense board is going on, at high intensity, and I've had reason to think it may be being influential. And perhaps constructive.

Some of the dialog , which I found revealing, and that may have influenced judgements of staffed organizations, has been deleted. I think that may be just as well. The dialog was up long enough, I feel, to have served a purpose. The board is being carefully censored. Under the circumstances, I'm grateful for that.

Some movement toward closure on some technical points about missile defense has, I believe, occurred.

MD10095 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11499 .

I believe THIS thread is being influential.

Toward a New Security Framework

There have been more than 10,000 postings on the NYT MD board (counting the few deletions that have occurred) since September 25, 2000.

Advice I got once:

" There is no one standard, no one rule, no one pattern that fits all the time, and if you have a system that you need to check, the checking system, for complicated circumstances, has to be structurally different from the system checked, and has to "violate" some "rules" built into the other system, so as to get things that have to be checked checked." "What's the best advice you've ever been given?" Wed 10/10/2001

Showalter - relate the thread title to WTC - when you find time.

Will do.

Psychwarfare, Casablanca, WTC -- and terror

Isn't the Green Peril the new Red Peril?

Is green left of red?

'.. The intelligence service in Jalalabad, he says, is run by a "megalomaniac" 24-year-old. When one prisoner escaped, Mr. Peyrard writes, the Taliban had the prisoner's three nephews — ages 10, 13 and 19 — arrested. The eldest, Mr. Peyrard writes, was tortured and suffered a mock execution in which the bullet hit the wall only inches from his head.

I review links discussing a proposal that I've made from time to time since March, and discussed with almarst and Dawn Riley extensively in - - - MD9842-9844 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/11158

The proposal deals with the idea of

" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion."

The rest of the world is organizing in ways that should permit the United States to be held to reasonable account - - - and in important ways, the United States is behaving in ways more accountable to world opinion than it did before September 11. - The time may be ripe for reviewing the reasons why the current nuclear terror occurred, and coming to understand how we may, responsibly and carefully, get out of that horrible situation. It makes no sense to have thousands of obsolete and terribly dangerous nuclear weapons around for decades more, when they serve (especially at such high levels) no military purpose. The misunderstandings and terrible patterns that caused these weapons to come into being should be better understood, and the reasons for them examined and deconstructed.

Any comparisons re Casablanca re current engagement US/Afghanistan ?

The key one, again and again is that lies and misconceptions, when taken as truths, paralyze minds.

Another is that, for idea systems completely unchangeable, and unacceptable, there may be no option but a fight. In Casablance, Nazis couldn't be defeated by argument -- they has to be fought and killed.

We need to find ways to communicate so we get to such circumstances much less often.

Vestiges of the Cold War, and very dangerous ones, still continue.

U.S. to Pull Out of ABM Treaty, Clearing Path for Antimissile Tests By DAVID E. SANGER and ELISABETH BUMILLER

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/international/12CND-MISS.html

War - might it happen less often

I F

if the countries that could - did

D I D

did help other countries by forming an alliance partnership to get them off the ground.

Say first world countries each took a second or more countries and set out to constructively trade, train, and assist ...

Wouldn't it be to the mutal advantage of both

As standards and needs rose

Giving hope to people in the disadvantaged situations that they did have the ability to drag their zone up by the bootstraps, set priorities and incrementally improve their situation.

As a starter: Implementation of Moral and ethical standards - reasonably free - would instantly raise the quality of life for many people.

Raising moral questions as common sense, practical questions more often would help.

Nukes, for example, are crazy, the instant you look at them in terms of practical human consequences.

So are threats, based on them, that disrupt and distort societies -- as the US and Russia have been distorted.

We should, at least, see that they don't destroy the world.

Problem is some of the people working with them just view them in technolgical terms and don't fit that to human terms.

It is terrifying, how easy it is for people to be "blind" in this way.

History is stained, and defiled, by many of the consequences.

I was glad to see http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12334 by gisterme , a person who I suspect has high connections with the Bush administration.

Gisterme said that

" The massive nuclear arsenals are already on their way out, Robert. That's because there's way more trust between their possesors than there was prior to 1991. Be patient. We'll both likely live to see the largest strategic nuclear arsenals no larger than a few dozen missiles or perhaps even less. Maybe none. The things are obsolete as rational tools of political leverage because they are too terrible for any sane leader to ever use except as last-ditch defense. .

The Collapse of Enron-- Moderated http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f276dbc/18 is a very interesting forum - pretty short, with excellent stuff throughout.

Postings on the MD board so far this year, though too many to interest the casual, involve things I believe ought to be of great interest to staffed organizations, all over the world, interested in military stability, and reduction of nuclear and other risks.

HOW TO SEARCH THE NYT MISSILE DEFENSE FORUM

MD9057 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10144

MD9440 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/10594

There seems to be an EnronWar happening in the USA .. there all Gullivers little people are crying and taring out their hair ... pension gone .. jobs gone ... a big big big big mess! Casablanca was 1943ish .. what EnronYear is it in the USA ?

MD10870 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12622 :

Last year, Russia hosted a meeting on the militarization of space - something like 104 countries attended. The United States did not. Laser weapons were centrally involved in the issues of concern. Take away the laser weapons, and the other offensive ideas for space weapons don't amount to much.

The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer Space By JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html

Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror #207-210 , linked in MD10882 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12636 , offers background on things that might be understood, and done.

Here are wonderful NYT Op. Ed Pieces:

ENRON AND THE GRAMMS by Bob Herbert http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/opinion/17HERB.html

THE UNITED STATES OF ENRON by Frank Rich http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/19/opinion/19RICH.html

The New York Times has been doing a remarkable job covering the Enron scandal, and a collection of their coverage is linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html

There is a moderated discussion on the topic "The Collapse of Enron." http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?50@@.f276dbc

"lchic" has many especially useful contributions.

Perhaps " enron " should become a verb. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f276dbc/709 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f276dbc/455 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12804

I was very glad to see Organizing the World to Fight Terror by IGOR S. IVANOV , Russian Foreign Minister http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html

Much of the NYT Missile Defense thread deals with subjects related to those that Minister Ivanov speaks of. MD11068 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12865

The need for openness, and international relations built on trust is very great. Towards that end, it is useful that things be checked. MD11071 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12868

People and nations do make their systems work better. Russia has made great progress since "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 .....

Efforts on the NYT MD thread may not have had anything to do with any of that progress, but lchic and I have tried to be constructive. md7389 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/8171

This thread has been cited repeatedly as a guide to work done, including triangulation to this and other guardian talk threads, on the NYT Missile Defense forum. That will continue. I appreciate the chance to post here.

Chance - is a random experience.

There are those who think the current US defense budget proposal is excessive and misshapen, and I'm one of them. The NYT is of the same opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/06/opinion/_06WED1.html

My own special interest is nuclear disarmament,and that has meant special attention to the NYT Missile Defense message board -- which remains quite active. I believe that it is being demonstrated that the basic technical parts of the Bush administrations's MD program are tactically useless. An interesting example is the Airborne Laser system (ABL) -- which depends on adaptive optics that requires a feedback path that does not exist. Key numbers are classified, but what is possible (and impossible) can be seen from widely known data in the open literature. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/13124

Some days, I feel the MD board is productive -- I'm stuck there, to some extent, because of a "credentialling problem" that can be viewed from several perspectives. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12592

In the last week, I've had a subjective sense of progress.

I like this thread.

I'm glad!

The NYT MD board has been active this week -- with a great many postings by " gisterme ", a personage I've sometimes suspected of high US government connections.

Dawn Riley pointed out that

I don't believe that the missile defense programs could stand careful, organized scrutiny about these questions, at the level suggested in MD10764 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f0ce57b/12487 , and feel that it would serve the interest of virtually all people of good faith concerned with world security to get some key facts checked, in some way that went beyond "trust me" -- and got down to specific, clear cases.

Casablanca came first with voters as the greatest love story ... was it people love or love of country that made it great?

Concerns about the Bush administration are widespread -- very often, things are done for reasons that don't make sense, in terms that are explained. Perhaps things cannot be explained in terms that can stand the light of day. The Enron scandal may illustrate a great deal about the role of "information control" (aka fraud) in current US government policy, foreign and domestic.

The emotive slogan in "Superman" comics, and movies, is

. Truth, justice, and the American way . . .

An Enron Unit Chief Warned, and Was Rebuffed By JOHN SCHWARTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/business/20PIPE.html

rshowalter - 04:21pm Feb 20, 2002 GMT (#262 of 262)

Truth, Justice and the American Way

That's Hollywood and Comic books. The real version is 'Truth, Justice and/or the American Way."

The other is the motto of the US Supreme Court. "There is no justice, there is only just us."

It was very appropriate that the blind fold went on the figure of Justice in the years shortly preceding the Taney Court.

In analogy to

" Truth, justice, and the American way . . .

The NYT Missile Defense thread, which now fills 28 notebooks of text, is being rebooted - continued, but without holding previous text on the database. The last ten days have been especially active, with our "Putin stand in, almarst", and the "Bush administration stand-ins" quite active. I've saved the thread. I posted the following summary of the thread to date. (MD11896)

. . .

"This thread has made some progress. The "missile defense" programs are technically much less tenable than they used to be. I think the discourse on this thread has been part of that. Very serious efforts to defend BMD have been made here - and they have taken up much space, and involved many evasions. But they have made no specific and detailed technical points that have been able to stand about technical feasibility.

The "lasar weapon" programs have been significantly discredited -- because countermeasures are easy, because adaptive optics is not easy, and because a fundamental misunderstanding about the "perfect coherence" of lasers has been made.

" Alignment good enough for lasing" has been confused with the far more difficult alignment needed for laser beam coherence for destroying targets over long distances.

We need some islands of technical fact to be determined, beyond reasonable doubt, in a clear context. It is possible to do that now.

Since the NYT Missile Defense forum restarted on March 1, discussions have been constructive, and dense. Entry 265, above, has been an essential summary -- and at the level of technical issues, but little contested. Our "Bush administration stand in" and "Putin stand-in" are active, and being constructive. The rebooted forum, much shorter, will also be more compact and well organized. MD84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/99

Just a thought for a happy ending, based on the pattern in How a Story is Shaped http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html

Status Quo . . .

Initial Problem . . .

Exposition . . .

Complications . . .

Crisis . . . A superpower out of hand - - with plenty of muddle and danger.

Climax boom, crash -- . . . A few world leaders say, in public, "this is an intolerable mess -- there are muddles here -- we want the key facts and relations sorted out -- staffed to closure -- beyond question . . ."

to be continued .

Denouement . . .

Description of New Status Quo . . .

New Status Quo

I think some pretty satisfactory resolutions would occur, pretty naturally, once there was enough "news value" for public scrutiny -- along with formats that were able to handle the logical problems involved.

MD170 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/203

MD171 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/204

MD84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/99

I think many of the questions raised by almarst , the NYT Missile Defense thread's "Putin stand-in" are interesting, and I've collected some of them in MD183 to MD186 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/217 are worth a lot of respect, attention, and concern.

Superb editorial: America as Nuclear Rogue http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/_12TUE1.html

I believe, for reasons of context that you can judge for yourself below, that manjumicha2001 either is, or represents, a major player in the Bush adminstration defense establishment. That is, of course, deniable, unless some journalists do some work.

manjumicha2001's posted MD401 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f28e622/493 rather than respond, or have a cohort respond, to a challenge of mine explicit enough that it could not be run away from. MD393 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/483

In MD401 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?13@@.f28e622/493 manjumicha2001 says this:

" I agree with you that NMD is a program that is 50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the laws of physics.

If people responsible for making the United States a "Nuclear Rogue" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/_12TUE1.html know the technical things that they must know, and that manjumicha2001 acknowledges -- scandal ought to be fully justified.

Lead article in MIT's Technology Review Why Missile Defense Won't Work by Theodore A. Postol April 2002 http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/postol0402.asp

From -GEN. GEORGE LEE BUTLER former commander, Strategic Air Command http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Lighthouse-Hertsgaard.htm

" Nuclear weapons are irrational devices. They were rationalized and accepted as a desperate measure in the face of circumstances that were unimaginable. Now as the world evolves rapidly, I think that the vast majority of people on the face of the earth will endorse the proposition that such weapons have no place among us.

I misjudged manjumicha2001 MD717 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/892 - - - and may have underestimated the amount of hard work, and brilliance, that NYT people are putting into the MD thread.

They'll Always Have Paris (and a Scholarly Web Site) March 18, 2002 By MATTHEW MIRAPAUL

" The American Film Institute plans to collaborate with the Georgia Institute of Technology to create a scholarly Web site for the movie "Casablanca." " http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/18/arts/18ARTS.html

The NYT Missile Defense thread was rebooted on March 1st, http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/1103 , and the summary was set out in #265 of this thread. There are some postings from the earlier thread that I'm reposting here, to facilitate discussions on the continued Missile Defense thread, and because I hope that some people may find them of interest.

rshowalter - 07:22am Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6057 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

I say here that I knew Bill Casey a little.

And of course, everything's deniable - I'm not sure anybody has any records at all. Maybe I'm a literary figure -- call me Ishmael.

The story I like best about me, in this regard, is that I'm just a guy who got interested in logic, and military issues. A guy who got concerned about nuclear danger, and related military balances, and tried to do something about it. Based on what he knew - with no access to special information of any kind, he made an effort to keep the world from blowing up, using the best literary devices he could fashion, consistent with what he knew or could guess.

Let me go on with another story.

I don't think of Casey as a critter, a phrase Dawn used above -- though he was capable of almost any evil at all. In fact, though I have mixed feelings, some of those feelings for Casey are of great respect. In significant ways, Casey's sophistication and morality seem to me to much exceed the sophistication and morality of the leaders who succeeded him.

I didn't talk to Casey often, but during the '70's and 80's we had a number of meetings, each about 2 hours long, each at the Hotel Pierre in New York.

They were intense, careful, interesting meetings -- and I left them, every time, with a lot of respect for Casey's intelligence and sophistication. I also left with real feelings, but not unmixed ones, that Casey had a real and intense desire to act in good faith when he felt he could. I also left those meetings relieved. But still afraid, though not so afraid as I was when I went into them.

In my interaction with The New York Times , I've been doing just exactly what Casey coached me to do -- ordered me to do -- what I promised Casey I would do.

When I got a problem solved (really several problems solved) after giving people a chance to take me in through other channels -- I was to come in through The New York Times . Casey thought that was what was going to have to happen -- but thought it had to be a last resort .. I should try other things -- things I did try -- first. ... But Casey felt that the TIMES was a last resort that would work. The TIMES would have the connections, when the situation seemed right, to get things moving gracefully and well -- the way America, in Casey's view, and mine, was supposed to work.

When I figured out the "buried problem" in applied mathematics, and "figured out how to really talk to the Russians" -- and figured out what a stable stand-down of nuclear terror was to be like -- I was to come in. They wanted the answers, but weren't sure how they'd accomodate them, and would have to sort it out at the time.

Its been rougher than that, for reasons, I believe, that Casey might be ashamed of.

I've been doing my duty, I believe -- making decisions I've felt I had to. In this regard, a phrase that Casey used in an answer to me occurs. He said, with a twinkle in his eye -- but a menacing twinkle (people who knew Casey may remember such twinkles) that, under difficult circumstances "it was easier to get forgiveness, than it was to get permission."

I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right, on balance, under the circumstances. So far, weighing what I've known and believed -- I've always judged that I have. I believe that now.

rshowalter - 07:23am Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6058 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

I'm needing to weigh what to do - and while I do so, I'd like to post links to a Guardian thread where I've said many of the most important things I'd like people to know. Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror rshowalter Tue 24/10/2000 21:57

including the key story, #13.. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?7@@.ee7a163/13 ...to #23.. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?7@@.ee7a163/24

note #26 ... rshowalter Tue 24/10/2000 23:13 To see many references to this that thread, and to the movie Casablanca , search "casablanca" for this thread.

Here are some postings connected to the Casablanca story that interest me especially today.

MD3044 rshowalter 5/2/01 5:31pm .... MD3045 rshowalter 5/2/01 5:31pm MD3046 rshowalter 5/2/01 5:32pm ...

MD3831rshowalter 5/14/01 12:09pm .... MD3523 rshowalter 5/8/01 4:12pm

Summaries and links to this Missile Defense thread are set out from #153 in rshowalter Sun 11/03/2001 16:35 MD4778 rshowalter 6/11/01 7:31pm

gisterme , raises the threat that I'm committing treason. I think not. I also think that the people saying so have been in such violation of the real interests of the United States, for so long, that they may not know what treason is --- because they have come to embody it themselves.

They may have much good in them, too. The world is a complex place.

We shouldn't let the world blow up. As of now, it could.

And the world is far, far uglier than it needs to be, because people don't face up to facts, and deal, as responsible human beings, with things as they are.

Lies are dangerous. We need to deal with some of them, that keep the Cold War going, when we should put it behind us.

rshowalter - 07:19am Jul 1, 2001 EST (#6370 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

Dawn, there were some important extenuating circumstances -- in many minds, including mine at the time -- about the way the US fought to Cold War -- ugly as it was. That is, there were before the fall of the Soviet Union.

Bill Casey felt passionate about this - agonized about this. Yes - it had been and was going to be necessary to do terrible, morally indefensible things. Yes, gross injustice had been and was going to be done to many people. Yes, it had been and was going to be necessary to subvert the Constitution, and many of the most dearly held values of the American people and our allies.

These things had been, and would continue to be necessary -- to fight the Cold War, against forces of totalitarianism that, Casey sincerely felt, had to be stopped at all costs - including both practical and moral costs.

Yes, it had been and was going to be necessary to lie and cheat and steal -- and kill innocent people beyond the ability of any individual human being to count.

(Ever tried to physically count to five million?)

And acted on them.

rshowalter - 07:19am Jul 1, 2001 EST (#6371 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

HOWEVER, Bill Casey also not only respected -- he revered , the standards of decency, and openness, and flexibility -- that THE NEW YORK TIMES tries to stand for -- and usually does.

When I talked to Casey, he was very clear about the conflict -- and his sense of the terrible moral box he and others had gotten the United States into. When he talked to me, a special asset who, it had been provisionally decided, was not to be killed -- (at every meeting I had with Casey, I was sure he was re-evaluating that decision) -- what we talked about was finding an end game -- finding a way out of the horror .

Perhaps, if Casey hadn't had the brain tumor he had, and died in 1989, the terrible tragedy of the last decade might not have happened quite as it did. Perhaps some grace not found could have been found. I don't know. This happened.

When the Soviet Union fell, and everyone, on all sides, had so much hope, we didn't have an end game -- and the United States was so tied up with lies, that it could not sort out problems before it -- or help the Russians sort out their problems.

Now, the country (those Americans led by the current Administration) is slam-banging into disaster -- throwing every decency imaginable overboard, one by one, in a doomed attempt to avoid having to face what has been done.

If we faced it, as we must -- there'd be much hope.

As it is now, --- America is being degraded, besmirched, made ugly - betrayed -- by the people now in control of the Federal government -- with but very few people standing up at all.

Few are pointing to the obvious, pervasive lies that are so clearly before us.

There simply is no alternative but for us to put the Cold War behind us. And that means that some core facts - that must be clear, for any reasonable shaping of the future --- must be set out.

I think that this thread is part of that.

lunarchick - 07:48am Jul 1, 2001 EST (#6372 of 7079) lunarchick@www.com

Interesting posts re Casey, Showalter. What you seem to be saying is that the US wanted to get rid of the 'Stalin' aspect of Russian communism - at any price. Even so, when it came to an end, had Cassey - the old critter, still been around, he would have still been looking for solutions to limit the pain and time-span of transition. (You're kinder to Casey than the Obituary comentator-links (above) seach Casey.

Putin must be working some magic over in Russia. The reports in the financial times are worth looking at today.

I know there's conflict here re the State taking more control, but, it seems to be a fight between State that may do things right for the people - if well lead, and the Russian Maffia types, who look after themselves.

The Russian state firmly reinforced its control over Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, yesterday when it won six of the 11 seats on the company...

Russia is picking itself up off the floor .

rshowalter - 08:13pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7385 of 7435) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

MD6057 rshowalter 6/26/01 7:22am includes:

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right, on balance, under the circumstances. So far, weighing what I've known and believed -- I've always judged that I have. I believe that now. These days, it seems to me that, if Bill Casey was looking down, he might be smiling. For one thing, I've had a helluva time, and knowing the old pirate, that might cheer him.

But more than that, there was an admonition, an order, that he repeated again and again, when we met. If I had to come in, and things were awkward in various ways, there was one thing, Casey felt, that I had to remember. That was to "preserve infrastructure."

He was very definite about what he meant by "preserving infrastructure." He meant that it was necessary to arrange actions, messages, and pacings, so that adjustments that needed to be made could be made, without unnecessary damage to people and institutions, with people moving at their own pace - in ways that worked for the human organizations, and the sunk investments, in place.

I was told to "come in through the TIMES ," and I've tried to do that, and done so making minimal waves -- just setting messages out, and letting people read them, think about them, and check them.

Has it been a waste? If only the past matters, not much but hope has been accumulated. But some things have been hopeful.

rshowalter - 08:14pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7386 of 7435) Robert Showalter mrshowalte@thedawn.com

I was glad to be able to have a one day meeting on this thread with becq (who I thought at the time was Bill Clinton) on September 25, 2000 between MD266 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am and MD304 rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm . I still think the short suggestion MD266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am makes human and practical sense, and the offer of rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm still stands. Did this accomplish anything? Maybe it sowed the seeds of some ideas.

Anyway, I think Casey would have approved. He wouldn't have known of the internet channel, dying when he did, but he would have liked it, and approved of the usages. "Outside of channels" in some ways, but plainly "through channels" in some others.

. . . . .

On my background:

rshowalter - 08:00am Jul 2, 2001 EST (#6397 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

MD6376 lunarchick 7/1/01 8:23am . . . asked

"Is there anything regarding this specialist problem solving approach that would be of interest to this board ?

You can say that I've tried to find ways to invent in ways that have disciplined beauty, in the real, complex socio-technical world in which we live. By training (perhaps mistraining) I've tended to concentrate on problems that are large, and that have, in some clear sense, stumped a field of endeavor. I can talk about nuts and bolts of that sort of work.

rshowalter - 08:02am Jul 2, 2001 EST (#6400 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

I think for this thread, it is more interest to talk of output I've gotten from this "optimal invention" approach that might offer examples of things that the military industrial complex might do, more profitable for all concerned than missile defense efforts that technically cannot work, and perhaps, for world peace, should not work.

Here are things that I believe can be achieved --

Very large area solar cells on the equatorial oceans. It should be possible to generate enough hydrogen to serve all word energy needs, forever. Hydrogen would interface well with existing energy sources and capital installations, from early prototype stage to the largest possible scale. This would be a practical and permanent advance in the human condition, and would reduce some major and chronic causes of war and conflict between nations.

The very same approach would show how possible -- in context, even easy, it would be to get global warming, human energy needs, and other basic human needs under far better control than they are now -- for less money than the administration is proposing to squander - to the reckless endangerment of the world, on missile defense programs that are, as I've used the phrase before, shucks .

Debate? Dissent? Discussion? Oh, Don't Go There! By MICHIKO KAKUTANI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/23/arts/23STUD.html contains a lot of wonderful stuff -- I was struck especially with this line:

" the Internet, which instead of leading to a global village, has created a multitude of self-contained tribes - niche cultures in which like-minded people can talk to like-minded people and filter out information that might undermine their views."

All Roads Lead to D.C. by EMILY EAKIN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/weekinreview/31EAKI.html

" Today, America is no mere superpower or hegemon but a full-blown empire in the Roman and British sense"

From NYT:

pleiotropik - 08:21am Apr 9, 2002 EST (#2285 of 2289) combustible human landscape

Or check out this:

April 9, 2002

"DIPLOMACY In Morocco, Powell Pleads for Arab Help in Mideast By TODD S. PURDUM Associated Press Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Morocco yesterday. Israel Starts Leaving 2 Areas, but Will Continue Drive

CASABLANCA, Morocco, April 8 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell began his Middle East peace mission in this moderate Arab nation today with frank pleas to two Arab leaders for more help in stopping Palestinian violence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/09/international/middleeast/09POWE.html

tough thing to ask of arabs at this point if you´re asking me.

For many of the problems that stump people now -- for many of the things where we say "if only we could do the obvious" - and then do much worse -- there are problems of simultenaity, complexity, and human nature of similar forms.

For instance, if you want to think through, in detail, what would be required for real, solid, sustainable peace in the Middle East -- I think asking the following question is useful in a number of ways.

How would you make a good, persuasive, interesting movie about achieving real peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis? . We know how complex making movies is -- and people actually make them.

Especially after MD1234 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/1577 , the NYT Missile Defense tread has been active. I made an "off the cuff" comment, and drew a distinguished poster in a very few minutes.

The Rebirth of Debate By GEORGE PACKER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/24/opinion/24PACK.html

To sort out problems, including problems of peace (and the smaller related muddles of the missile defense boongoggle) people have to face the truth, tell the truth, and avoid misinformation. When right answers really count, they have to "connect the dots" ( MD1055 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/1344) so that patterns emerge -- and to check those patterns.

Here are some OpEd pieces by Paul Krugman quoted on the NYT Missile Defense thread:

The Big Lie http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

Bad Heir Day http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

The Great Divide http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

The Smoke Machine http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

Connect the Dots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

At Long Last? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/05KRUG.html

The White Stuff http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

Losing Latin America http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

The Angry People http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html

A number of links discussing Krugman's pieces are set out in MD1741 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2181

I'm so glad Guardian Talk is back!

Hatred - and LIES.

MD1755 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2201

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/165xqyni.asp

Revenge - book review http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/2319783p-2747920c.html

MD1756 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2202

MD1759-60 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2205

The NYT Missile Defense thread has been very active, and I sometimes think that it may have been influential. I'll be referring to this thread there, many times again.

U.S., in Surprise, Announces Global Talks for Mideast By TODD S. PURDUM and DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/international/middleeast/03CAPI.html

shows a situation where, if complications can be faced - - and resolved, enormous good could come. lunarchick's MD1972 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2454 includes key questions:

"In one years time - where do we ALL want to be?" .

With more openness, there would be less terror, and much more hope.

I've asked

" When large news organizations such as The New York Times or the Guardian-Observer cannot solve problems by covering the facts about them -- why don't the solutions happen, when they often seem very clear?