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?

almarst-2001 - 02:19pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1030 of 1038)

President RONALD REAGAN (22 November 1982, in televised address):

"What do we mean when we speak of nuclear deterrence? Certainly we don't want such weapons for their own sake. We don't desire excessive forces or what some people have called 'over -kill.' Basically, it's a matter of others knowing that starting a conflict would be more costly to them than anything they might hope to gain."

Shouldn't that apply to any country, large or small?

rshowalter - 02:53pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1031 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It absolutely should.

And most Americans would, if they looked at it straight, think that. Maybe virtually all of them.

rshowalter - 02:58pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1032 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And deterrance need not be nuclear deterrance.

Indeed, in the world we live in ALL advanced nations "live in glass houses, and shouldn't throw stones."

There is NO large, advanced nation state that has a valid interest, AT THE SCALE OF THE NATION STATE'S POPULATION that favors war.

That includes the United States which is less secure and poorer because of excessive military expenditures, and excessive use of force.

This is a matter of FACT that needs to be made clear, in the face of some very well motivated, well funded predatory conspiracies that DO have an interest in war and preparation for war.

almarst-2001 - 03:15pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1033 of 1038)

rshowalter 3/15/01 2:58pm

"There is NO large, advanced nation state that has a valid interest, AT THE SCALE OF THE NATION STATE'S POPULATION that favors war."

You may underestimate the ability of mass-propaganda, similar to what had happen during the bombing of Serbia.

rshowalter - 03:17pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1034 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

At the same time, ALL nation states have valid needs for security in their borders, and for fair treatment in their necessary (and necessarily extensive) international connections.

rshowalter - 03:22pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1035 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

No, I don't think I misunderstand that power. I think that the power of mass propaganda has to be confronted - and that essential parts of the job are intellectual in nature - and persuasive in nature.

With the technology of the internet, the power of nation states to lie is getting WEAKER. Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have done what he did if the internet had existed, and World War II would have been unthinkable, both at the level of tactics and the level of strategy.

The power of newspapers to lie is getting weaker, too. But there is work to do, from where we are now.

Keeping anger under control, and working on evidence, and the necessity of REPEATED persuasion, is essential. Let me see if I can find a quote from Bertodt Brecht, a bad guy in many ways, I think, who nonetheless said some worthwhile things every once in a while.

almarst-2001 - 03:29pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1036 of 1038)

rshowalter 3/15/01 3:22pm

"Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have done what he did if the internet had existed, "

That was my believe before the bombing of Serbia. I am afraid I lost my innocence since then. And it is very hard to become an innocent again;)

rshowalter - 03:35pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1037 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Bertotdt Brecht's essay, WRITING THE TRUTH, FIVE DIFFICULTIES is in my version of his play, GALILEO , set into English by Charles Laughton.

It includes this:

. "It takes courage to say that the good were defeated not because they were good, but because they were weak."

When the truth is too weak, we have to ask why? Was it indeed the truth? Or were there systematic barriers to the propagation of the truth -- chain breakers?

Both are essential questions. Both are questions that need to be asked with one's temper under firm control.

rshowalter - 03:40pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1038 of 1038)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Don't be innocent -- look at how the outrage happened, and what might be done, to redress that case, but more, to make such things much less likely. The truth was "somehow, too weak." I know something, from my personal perspective, about how afraid a high ranking American press officer was of the truth, when I was personally involved.

VERY afraid. And so were a number of employees of The New York Times.

But the fear is partly a hopeful sign. When people are afraid, they have a sense of vulnerability -- and for people of good faith, that's close to a sense of doubt.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense