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 - 01:56pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#665 of 669)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Quote from Myers' article:

While Mr. Bush did not specify limits on the warheads in the shield, he pledged to seek "the lowest possible number consistent with our national security."

With care and hard work, I hope that minimum number can reach or approach zero. For that to happen, a lot of hard work will have to occur, and a lot of new, disciplined beauty will have to come into being.

dirac_10 - 12:01am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#666 of 669)

rshowalter - 12:39pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#661 of 665)

Let me get this right... You think we shouldn't worry if some ruthless dicatators have nuclear etc. weapons and we don't because there is a chance they won't completely destroy us for sure. And we might be able to get revenge after being almost totally destroyed?

Riiiiight.

rshowalter - 04:41am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#667 of 669)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Never said that. I'm for effectively outlawing nuclear weapons. Ive got a lot of company there.

Colin Powell has said very similar things publicly. So have many, many other distinguished people.

The futility of first use of nuclear weapons, for anything but extermination of an enemy and all his allies, ought to be remembered. By everybody involved. And I think the point should be more discussed than it is, so that it is not forgotten.

If all military people knew this fact about nuclear weapons, the probablity of a small state, or political group, wanting to use them would shrink. If people were entirely logical (and I'm not claiming that they are) that probability would shrink to zero.

Here's an example, among many, of how ideas, clearly expressed, shift what may be discussed, and the solutions that may be found, if these ideas become widely accepted for good reasons.

rshowalter - 05:14am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#668 of 669)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

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.

"becq's last posting was this:

"American foreign policy would work better if we could be clearer in our internal and external signals"

Quite true thats why America makes it quite clear and indicates that it will use nuclear weapons if it feels it needs to. beckq 9/25/00 5:03pm

I closed my end of the discussion in the next twenty minutes, in 191 words.

bigred152 - 08:36am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#669 of 669)

The United States currently has more than 7,000 nuclear warheads, but the new review could lead to unilateral cuts to as few as 2,500 or 2,000. Officials have said such cuts might make missile defense more palatable to Moscow.

However, senior U.S. military officers have in the past raised strong objections to massive cuts in nuclear missiles so long as Russia retains thousands of long-range and tactical warheads despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense