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?

lunarchick - 04:02am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1362 of 1366)
lunarchick@www.com

Stockholm

lunarchick - 04:48am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1363 of 1366)
lunarchick@www.com

Interesting Vocab:

In addition, American officials noted today that the C.I.A. was "a team player" in the decision to expel a large number of Russians, despite a certain reprisal against its own officers in Russia. One possible explanation is that the C.I.A. has opened stations throughout many of the former Soviet republics and in the capitals of former Warsaw Pact allies in eastern Europe, giving the agency avenues denied it during the Soviet era.

rshowalter - 07:31am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1364 of 1366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I have a personal problem, and I'd like to raise it. It involves a difficulty I have -- that I work alone, without staffing. It is related to the notion of "sending in clear" -- but is largely a personal problem of mine. And yet, for me to do duties that I find compelling, I need some help -- help, just here, that could come, in an open way, most gracefully from Russia.

Due to unanticipated economic dislocations in my country, enterprises that set up free e-mail boxes, supported by ad revenue, are folding, or being reorganized. As a result, several email boxes that I have (boxes that CIA has had adresses and passwords for since September 2000) containing some 450 entries in all, are to be destroyed on March 27th. Due, I suspect but cannot know, to the action of my government, I am blocked from accessing these boxes to retrieve files dear to my heart, and perhaps of value to my personal economic interest and personal safety.

Even if I were not blocked, the process of retrieving the files -which is basicall to copy each on on a "word pad" like word processor, is laborious. Because, in my view, the statistically expected number of deaths from nuclear destruction is about 1.6 million deaths per day, I'm reluctant to spare the two days it might take to do this retrieval job. Anyone with access to a computer could do it. Would there be anyone in the Russian embassy who might clean these boxes for me, sending me a copy, sending Lunarchick a copy, and sending a copy to any US government agency deemed proper? The Russians would have my permission to use any information in these boxes, in ways that interested them -- my guess is that most of the material is of personal interest only.

Lunarchick might countermand this request, if she wishes too, through any channels she thinks right.

If it were possible to do this through the good offices of Russia, I'd be able to work on things that might serve the cause of peace more effectively. It might also, I believe serve as an object lesson about the uses of OPEN communication -- including some of the moral usages that make sense, simply because of the complexity of the circumstances involved.

If I got a "yes" - I could get the box names and passwords to you. I'd be most grateful if you could help me in this way.

rshowalter - 07:35am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1365 of 1366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It might, I believe, be an interesting demonstration of the obsolescence of certain usages.

It might make another point -- one that becomes compelling in our complicated world.

There is an expression "judge not, lest ye be not judged."

That's impractical. As social beings, we all judge, and are judged, and we must be.

Even so, there is another point, that I believe ought to get more emphasis than it does:

"Judge not, unless you have the time to do it decently, and with a reasonable chance of being right."

rshowalter - 07:42am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1366 of 1366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am

We'll show That even when you try To communicate "in clear" It ain't easy

And to eavesdrop .. so you're sure of what you heard IS IMPOSSIBLE ! ! ! !

People are too afraid to "give themselves away" and so erect walls static defenses of lies

Clear's safer ! If you're talking in clear and overheard by someone who doesn't know the unspoken stuff

They'll say, "Couldn't attack these folks" "They know their territory -- they'd wrong foot me in a minute

"But I do see enough, to know this for sure" "Just now, they ain't attacking me."

Just the thing both sides need to know to step back from destruction.

. . . . Clear's safer ! We got e-mail transcripts, as demos that prove it .

Anybody wanna see? Some CIA folks saw those e-mails with my permission, and my partner's, too I think maybe they backed off a little bit after they saw them.

a lot more people ought to know how safe it is to send in CLEAR

If more folks knew we could all lie less learn more and have more fun.

In clear: Lying is more dangerous than people think, and soaks up more attention than people know. We can do less of it. We can send in clear - the message, almost always, will be peaceful. And complex cooperation, now so often terminated with deceptive sequences, could happen more often.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense