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?

rshowalter - 07:45pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1058 of 1063)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd repeat rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm in its entirety.

A central point is to see how much staff work this would take -- and take in a short time, so that closure could actually occur.

Staffing should be such that logical objections or questions could be resolved. Resolved coherently and with intellectual dash. In minutes or hours rather than days or weeks.

I know some staffs with that capability -- I've seen them in action. They are the "armies" of the world's great newspapers and other reporting organizations, with the connetions to the larger world that these people have.

In 960 rshowalter 3/12/01 2:47pm I set out questions, well suited to large journalistic organizations which, as a practical matter, need to be adressed for a solution to the problems of nuclear weapons, and other military imbalances, if understanding is to be at a workable human level for the nation states (socio-technical systems) involved. The questions might be much improved, and there might be more questions -- but the point is that this would take a lot of staff work - and I'm proposing a mechanism, as a basis of discussion, that might bring that staff work to bear, and get to closure.

rshowalter - 07:52pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1059 of 1063)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I believe that the following things could be done.

. Crucial FACTS could be established, in the most public possible way, beyond reasonable doubt - and these facts and the most fundamental implications of them could be explained very broadly.

and

. A fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world could be drafted. A good one. One where all the problems that could reasonably be raised in public had been.

Would this solve all the problems? No.

But it would set the stage so that the nation states involved could actually solve them, in fairly short order, because these are problems that an enormous majority of people in the world, and an enormous majority of politicians in the world, want solved.

Of course, it is not a sure thing. Or anything close. But I believe it is worth a try, and would cost relatively little.

The current military and nuclear situation is ugly, beyond sense, and very dangerous. We can do better than that.

Maybe I'm naive -- but this seems reasonable to me. Thank you for your attention.

rshowalter - 08:21pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1060 of 1063)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 3/14/01 10:56pm made a superb suggestion:

" What I would suggest is to try and create a list of existing hot-spots, the players involved and the possible reasons for hostility, including official versions. If you agree, I would exclude what I call "internal problems" of a terrorism/nacionalism/separatism. I also don't know enough about African wars to effectively discuss them.

" I would start with a list and we can expand/modify it as we go and discuss it.

I'm sorry to have been sidetracked from these vital questions, and will try to adress them in the morning.

I'm taking a break.

almarst-2001 - 10:35pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1061 of 1063)

Robert,

Your discussion on Paradigm is indeed very importand one. Unfortunatly, it may be very hard to break the established Paradigm and make a shift for at least those reasons:

- Resistance from the existing Paradigm "establishement" who may lose thir position, importance, reputation and material benefits. Being at the top, they are in an excelent position to discredit and sabotage any effort to change the status-quo. Unless they are idealistic and altruistic enough to accept the truth.

- Resitance or indifference from the outsiders who either do not posess a critical mind and blindly accept the established axiom, or those who just don't care. Unless they are convinced the change may be directly beneficial for them. Convinced either by other (higher) authority or the pure necessity.

So, the way to shift the paradigm may be done in two directions - convincing the idealistic and altruistic insiders on their field and terms and finding authorithy interested to promote the case.

Just today, while listening to PBS on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was surprised to hear the new idea which may eventually be a solution:

Create a common Israeli-Palestinian state modeled on a basis of Swiss cantons. That would mean dropping of an idea of a pure Jewish state. But I believe Jews may accept it if they will fill secure. The main reason the Israel was established was to provide jews with secure homeland.

I lived in Israel for 14 years after immigrating from USSR, and as I remember, this option was never even discussed.

lunarchick - 11:55pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1062 of 1063)
lunarchick@www.com

Looking at Paradigm shift, the question has to be put ... "If people are stuck in a rut, why don't they get out of it?"

In the MD area the people who can lift others out of it have to be the political VISION strategists.

Look at competing interests for funding in any nation ... MD should be at the bottom not the top of their lists. Then what should be at the top. What are the 'other' competing areas that spending could go to ... all and any of which would do more good that towards the white-elephants of MD.

lunarchick - 12:02am Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1063 of 1063)
lunarchick@www.com

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/poems/pathology.of.colours.da.html

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense