New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

almarstel2001 - 12:17am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#829 of 836)

As I see it, the US military wants the NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, when its tremendous adwantage in power will be useless against anyone who posesses even a single nuclear missle capable to reach the US and who may be ready to commit suiside in case of aggression. Practically that would mean the end of American's ability to dictate and rule by force. Imagine - no more bombings of Iraq, libia, Serbia! For the country which spends about 300 bi/year - 30% of its budget on military, more then 10 next military spenders combined, this is a real nightmere.

"Unfortunatly", that is going to be a reality, sooner or later. The more US will push for world's domination - the sooner. And no NMD will save it for at least the following two reasons:

1 - No NMD will ever quarantee 100% success, which will the "domination" wars too risky for US.

2 - The offensive means, capable to overcome the defence, are usually much less expensive and simpler to produce.

However, the current state of affairs already caused tremendous damage to US bu showing its willingness to ignore its pledges and signed laws.

Who would trust the dishonest arrogant and brutal superpower bully run amok?

lunarchick - 03:53am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#830 of 836)
lunarchick@www.com

On checking: 0.02% of Mir crashing 13-15th March and hitting a city - possibly mine! There's an air of unpredicatbility hereabouts.

rshowalter - 05:38am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#831 of 836)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

lunarchick 3/5/01 3:53am

People have trouble getting a moral, vivid sense of odds.

But the things that happen to us all, from conception on, involve many improbable, and even "far fetched" events.

Still, bad things happen. And our ability to predict is limited.

You mention a probablity --- .02%, or 1 chance in 5000 . I think the chance of the world ending in a nuclear disaster this year is much greater than that -- perhaps 1 chance in 10, or more.

A whole industry, the insurance industry, is based on actuarial calculations - so that responsible action can be taken to deal with the possibilities of small risks that do, nevertheless, happen.

The actuarial risk to each and every one of us, because of nuclear weapon instabilities, ought to motivate the actions required to eliminate or radically reduce these risks.

rshowalter - 06:44am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#832 of 836)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarstel2001 3/5/01 12:17am

The United States has NEVER been able to actually use nuclear weapons, a fact thats been clear for a long time, to many people, rshowalt 10/4/00 5:08am including many of great military and political sophistication, Secretary of State Colin Powell among them.

There's been confusion on that point, and I believe that it has muddled a great deal, in international relations, and inside the US. A dialog I had on September 25, with beckq 9/25/00 9:19am illustrates that confusion, and some of its costs, and some of the risk and paralysis associated with these matters.

almarstel2001 I think you are right that the US military wants the NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, --- but I don't think there are any serving US officers, anywhere near power, who actually want to use nuclear weapons in first strikes of any kind. Not when they consider all the things that such action would actually involve.

The US military-industrial complex wants NMD out of a desire to do something , even something irrational, to try to extricate our country and the world from a peril that they know enough to feel keenly. I think that's an impulse that deserves both sympathy and respect.

Even so, it is an impulse that a reader of military history must be concerned about. Here, things are important enough that right answers ought to be morally forcing , and the undoubted physical courage and hard work of military-industrial people should include the courage, hard work, and fortitude needed to get right answers on the issue of a reasonable nuclear policy, which is an issue of life and death under conditions of clear, present, and LARGE danger.

rshowalter - 06:46am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#833 of 836)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarstel2001 I think youre unjust, imbalanced, and partly and significantly, wrong when you ask

Who would trust the dishonest arrogant and brutal superpower bully run amok?

All people lie - as a matter of the grammar of discourse, we must evade simply to guide normal conversation. The United States government, to act in a world of military realities, must sometimes lie. As all nation states do.

Could the words dishonest and arrogant and brutal be applied to the United States?

Surely.

Could the United States be said to be running amok on issues where it is difficult indeed to know what the right thing is to do?

Surely.

Given human nature, which involves both good and bad, how can this be surprising, or even especially reprehensible? Mankinds Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? ....Guardian TALK

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense