New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

rshowalter - 04:27pm Nov 2, 2000 EDT (#464 of 471)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The logic of the situation, in itself, isn't very hard. Kalter put his finger on the BIG problem when he said:

"The public, naturally enough, is mesmerized to paralysis by the thought of Nuclear Armeggedon . . . . . ."

getting past that paralysis is an artistic, poetic, journalistic, moral, social challenge.

rshowalter - 04:29pm Nov 2, 2000 EDT (#465 of 471)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If people were that far along, scared but attentive, taking a good look, they might come up with much better solutions, in human terms, than those suggested here.

kalter.rauch - 08:22am Nov 3, 2000 EDT (#466 of 471)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

We can't afford to assume "the enemy" knows or even cares a whit about ethics or what we think...except insofar as it reveals weak niches in our armor. What happens to rational thought when "THEY" are engaged in dialogue? We first have to delude ourselves into imagining these inscrutable martinets can even form complete sentences. Then, in the straits of exasperation, thin smiles slashing across the faces of sadistic mass-murderers are desperately misinterpreted as a "cry for help" from "that impoverished land". At this point we show them how best to tie the noose around our necks......

rshowalter - 11:17am Nov 3, 2000 EDT (#467 of 471)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

kalter , dealing with enemies, you're exactly right that appeals to ethics, and to trust, can't be relied on, though they can sometimes be useful.

When military threats are involved, trust is unstable. Reassurance has limited uses, but is dangerous to rely on.

When military threats are involved, and this applies more to nuclear terror than to anything else, it is **distrust** and **mutual fear** that are stable.

The proposal in #266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am relies on distrust, and fear, not nonexistant trust or feelings of safety. The proposal doesn't ask for any trust at all. It doesn't ask that anyone like anybody else.

We and the Russians may have many reasons to be enemies, but we have a mutual interest in reducing, and ideally eliminating nuclear weapons. As Gorbachev said "Even an unloaded gun goes off every once in a while" and the instability of our nucear arsenals is much worse than that. And the risks are terrifying - for all concerned.

Trust doesn't work in nuclear negotiations, because when it gets to the sticking point, both sides are intensely concerned about first strike tricks, and terribly afraid of nuclear destruction. I think that the GSI funded CNN documentary REHEARSING ARMAGEDEDDON made that clear. Negotiaters on both sides cannot make concessions based on trust, when the reality is fear and distrust.

But we can acknowledge our fears and distrusts, and build on them, rather than deny them. If we do, we can take nuclear weapons down based on distrust and accomodations to that distrust (bugging of leaders, exchange of hostages, inspection.)