[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (1046 previous messages)

rshowalter - 05:12pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1047 of 1053) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

1 November 2000

Mr. Bob Showalter 7205B Old Sauk Rd. Madison Wi. 53717

Dear Mr. Showalter:

I am in receipt of the materials you sent regarding a proposal for a special in The New York Times Sunday magazine.

For the Global Security Institute to proceed with such a proposal it would need to originate from the Times. If the Times is indeed interested in creating a special section on disarmament, their representatives should contact us directly at our office.

Without this I am sorry to say that there is no possibility for GSI participation in what you propose. Thank you for your concern and time.


Tyler Stevenson Project Director

  • *****

    I simply didn't have enough credibility for them to go forward - or even enough credibility for them to be particularly polite. - And the fact is, lunarchick , for reasons I understand well now, didn't feel she could raise the matter at that time in November. though she was working her heart out trying to advance the project, in her world as it was. .

    rshowalter - 05:14pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1048 of 1053) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    Now, if somebody who DID have status made a phone call, these people would probably work hard, and have something to contribute. (For a hypolthetical example, Putin could call Gorbechev, who might call Goodall, and something might be worked out.) And if GSS didn't get interested, other organizations would.

    In stages, according to a sort of "logical incrementalism" -- and the same could be said, I believe for news organizations -- including Ted Turner's CNN. Turner just pledged $250 million dollars of his personal money to nuclear control efforts, and he'd do what he could, if he had any hope that a workable relation could be put together. The NYT would at least look at such a proposal, and so would the Guardian, and so would some other distinguished newspapers in the US and other places.

    With the internet, the proposal of #956 rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm would be entirely practical. Something better might be practical as well.

    With the internet, we are in a new world.

    rshowalter - 05:17pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1049 of 1053) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    # 374, Signatories of the Global Security Institute appeal as of October 2, 2000 seem well worth listing, because I find the list hopeful: rshowalt 10/4/00 5:08am

    This list could be much augmented -- there are enough people who want peace, and nuclear disarmament, for superb journalism and, I believe, concrete progress.

    lunarchick - 05:53pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1050 of 1053)

    Interesting here how both big money and big (American) names aren't making progress - how so ?

    lunarchick - 06:00pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1051 of 1053)

    The above may be a stupid question. Just thinking the 'bringing down of missiles' is a political matter .. but .. the American politicians aren't privy to the MD program workings ... and if they know nothing much about it - because they don't want to know. Then nothing much is going to happen.

    Raises the point regarding the USA

    'When was the last time that people-power actually got a reaction from the American 'Parliament' ?

    I'm using Parliament because the word is from the French verb 'to talk' .. I don't know what the word 'congress' actually means with respect to negotiated democracy.

    lunarchick - 06:06pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1052 of 1053)

    I read these definitions carefully, thoughtfully and at one point laughed spontaneously, as you will:

    Congress (the word) has much to do with formalities (games and strategies) and less to do with open discussion than I would like.

    rshowalter - 06:27pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1053 of 1053) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    I think a lot of progress HAS been made, at great cost of effort. And now, people -- a lot of people, want the nuclear weapon problem, and larger problems of peace, solved.

    Some "big guns" who have been frustrated have had some interesting things to say about why. I'd like to go back and read them, and bring back some quotes.

    But protocols have been impossible -- some basic misunderstandings have classified solutions out of existence (for example the notion that nuclear powers can "trust" each other) and there haven't been mechanisms to establish questions of fact, and get to closure.

    These mechanisms are now possible, to an extent that never existed before, because of the cooperations possible on the internet.

    I'll try, within an hour or not much more, to get more workable answers to #1050, which might be rephrased --

    "Well, if others have tried -- what makes you think a new approach could work now?

    This problem needs to be reframed, and can be.

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
     E-mail to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

    Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
    See the
    quick-edit help for more information.

  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company