Missile Defense

rshowalt - 04:28pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#291 of 396)

Nuclear weapons are few enough, and awkward enough, that we could eliminate them.

beckq - 04:31pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#292 of 396)

"But we use the "option" of a first strike routinely in our patterns of discussion"

beckq - 04:31pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#293 of 396)

rshowalt - 04:28pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#291 of 292)

Nuclear weapons are few enough, and awkward enough, that we could eliminate them.

rshowalt - 04:32pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#294 of 396)

This tit for tat doesn't work so well. Why don't I get off here for a little while, and let beckq state a coherent position.

Here's a central question I'd raise. Assertions are easy.

HOW ARE ASSERTIONS TO BE CHECKED? IF THAT'S RULED OUT, AS IT SEEMS TO BE NOW, HOW CAN WE EVER MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

Over to you, for a while, Becq.

beckq - 04:33pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#295 of 396)

rshowalt - 04:32pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#294 of 294)

My positions can be rest reflected in Hobbes.

Enjoy the readings.

rshowalt - 04:46pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#296 of 396)

Thanks for the reference. We might want to do better than an life that is "nasty, brutish, and short." Especially when the fate of the world (and the prosperity of the world) are in the balance.

beckq - 04:47pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#297 of 396)

rshowalt - 04:46pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#296 of 296)

History is not on your side.

Prosperity and nuclear weapons are two different things.

beckq - 04:50pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#298 of 396)

For example rshowalt,

what would promote a nation the size of say India with 350 million people in dire absolute poverty to seek out, development and maintain nuclear weapons? 350 million. Thats the entire population of the 4th most populated country in the world.

It becomes quite understandable when you note that life is indeed nasty brutish and short.That the primary role of the nation is to protect and that survival of that short period is utmost.

rshowalt - 04:55pm Sep 25, 2000 EDT (#299 of 396)

They can even be contradictory things. Because patterns of deception, which our nuclear policy dictates, impose operational constraints that get more and more onerous as system complexity increases.

There's another cost. Maybe bigger. When we have to take the classical position that

He who troubleth his own house will inherit the wind" (I forget the number in Proverbs)

and assume that we must hide what we do from outsiders, we make it difficult, or even impossible to export the American econonomic example, something that we want to do. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE OUTSIDERS CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING. And often, with complex cooperation, we can't figure out what we have to do efficiently or quickly ourselves. In close quarters, when speed is important, lies are expensive, and can often be disastrous. And our nuclear policy commits us to many, basic, dynamically unstable lies. I don't think those costs are appreciated. I believe that they are huge. It is hard to set that out on a rapid-fire basis, but I think given a little time, I could set that out tommorrow.

American foreign policy would work better if we could be clearer in our internal and external signals. Nuclear (not conventional) disarmament would be a giant step in that direction.

(97 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense