New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(249 previous messages)
- 11:15am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#250
Vic, "You reference a Mr. Brodie, but he is so important to your
arguments that you can't even take the time to ensure you are
spelling his name correctly or to refer to any specific article or
book he has written."
Answer: I spelled his name right in my post. I find this amazing
due to my fine ability to spell most names incorrectly. However in
this particular instance his name was spelled correctly.
Note also that I was quite fair and honest with you. I suggested
to you his works and indicated my perspective on his views and how
they fit into this debate
:"With the increase of the arms race the United States changed
its view to that of Brodie in terms of nuclear strategy. My fellow
vic take a look for Bernard Brodie (sp).Excellent introduction to
American nuclear concepts-in particular the reasoning for second
(sp)indicates it MAY be spelled wrong.However it was not.
In addition, he is to this issue of nuclear deterrence in America
so basic, so well known, so simplistic in ones initial studying, so
fundamental in formulation of an understanding of American policy
that to NOT know who he is equal to that of talking about Federalism
and not knowing whom Hamilton, Madison ,or Jay are. Much less the
Bernard Brodie's pioneering studies for world politics and
military policy in the nuclear age received international
recognition and established him as a founder of modern strategic
theory. He was the first scholar of strategic studies to discern the
revolutionary nature of warfare in the nuclear age and to point the
way to a fundamental revision of the concepts, language, and
theories of modern warfare. As early as 1946, in his book The
Absolute Weapon, Brodie foretold the use of "massive retaliation" in
the 1950's. Brodie's other books dealing with issues of strategy and
military history include: Layman's Guide to Naval Strategy (1942),
Seapower in the Machine Age (1943), Strategy in the Missile Age
(1959), Escalation and the Nuclear Option (1966), as well as From
Crossbow to H-Bomb (Revised Ed. 1973), on which he collaborated with
his wife, the late Fawn Brodie, a prominent historian.
S huh Vic,
go stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
- 11:30am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#251
"But then, until you, I haven't met a man who would refer to an
ICBM in a silo as an "overpriced male pecker..."
Then you need to listen to some George Carlin.
- 11:33am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#252
beckq #243. I do believe you have, in #228. "So that view is
indeed what I wrote and fits within your narrow dictionary view." If
it fits, it is! Please explain that contradiction.
No contradiction exists with this term. You however seem to miss
that you provided 3 definitions and I picked one that was in line
with my point of view. The contradiction exists with your intial
postions as was already pointed out.
- 11:41am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#253
re: beckq #244. "This is not a game."
What is not a game? Sir, all of deterrence strategy rests on Game
Theory. It is indeed a game. From Chicken, to the decisions making
situations like Prisoners dilemma to blind mans bluff, to chess, to
tic TAC toe. In the early 80s Hollywood attempted to convey this to
the general public in a movie called Wargames. I suggest you rent
"Your argument only works in a bipolar world."
Bipolarity as discussed by Kenneth Waltz and John Lewis Gaddis
both say otherwise that nuclear weapons proliferated actually
maintain stability in a multipolar environment. You need to
understand that in this circle of expertise two opinions exist. One
opinion supports the view that bipolarity is stable and creates a
'cold peace' between two hegemonic powers. They cite multipolarity
as the cause for World War I and earlier European conflicts. The
other view indicates the bipolarity is unnatural in world history
and that multipolarity is the common balance of power known. It
argues that multipolarity tied with economics (complex
interdependence theory) produces a stronger more stable system then
bipolar. Those who support multipolarity also maintain something
that the other side cannot deny. Multipolarity in world history is
more common then bipolar structures and now nuclear weapons are in
the picture and this factor of technology cannot be denied.This
group then follows up by saying that To counter this point the
bipolar group views nuclear weapons proliferation as actually a
positive factor in maintaining stability in a multipolar
environment. Why? Because the bipolar group who tends to support
neorealism view economics as not being strong enough to meet the
unstable nature of multipolarity. Therefore this group welcomes
nuclear weapons proliferation as a stabilizing factor in an
inherently unstable multipolar environment.
Mulitpolarity is considered LESS stable then bipolar. Nuclear
proliferation actually decreases the instability of it.
"How do you propose to handle the challenge of the other nuclear
powers that are emerging."
Knowledge is power. It cannot be locked down. Proliferation is a
natural action, one only needs to examine the nuclear bomb in 45 and
now to witness this. One will never prevent proliferation; one can
only slow it down. If one wants to slow it down then continue to
increase funding of international regimes like MTCR,The Australian
Group and the IAEA. Continue to pass legislation like the Nunn Luger
Bill.Continue to pass and maintain such legislation like the Glenn
Amendment. Even if its eventuality is lifting of sanctions so called
for, the initial damage indicates a policy backed with an economic
fist. Each group and such supportive legislative action plays a role
in helping reduce the natural fast track of proliferation.
- 12:20pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#254
"If we respond tit for tat, you are using NUTS"
No. I suggest you go back and understand what NUTS (Nuclear
Utilization Theory) is.
(11609 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science