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 - 11:35am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1372 of 1375)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The situation is so complicated that it needs a reframing -- logically, socially, and morally, too. Secular Redemption is needed.

Lies, self deceptions, and mistakes that are left unfaced are Chain Breakers that keep necessary things from happening. They can be deadly. In our current military circumstances, especially with respect to nuclear weapons, they are.

Whats needed is a way to eliminate chain breakers by substituting grace for fear.

We need to keep necessary decisions from having a human price, for human actors, that is just too high - in a way that can produce human agonies and social tragedies like the one Ive been going through, set out in LEARNING TO STAND WE need for TRUTH to work. There have to be ways past obstruction, including the obstruction of intimidation, and the obstruction of lies.

almarst-2001 - 11:54am Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1373 of 1375)

"If checking is impossible, on anything really important, trust is impossible, too."

At least until the trust is firmly established.

But I think, in a matters of strategic nuclear arms, pretty good checking is already in place.

The real intentions are harder to judge. During the Cold War, the West proclaimed that the real intention of Russia is to establish the Communism all over the world. Which, by itself, presented no danger, just like any branch of religion or phylosophy, unless attempted to be imposed by force. This, in my view, was rarelly the case, except events in Hungary in 1956 and in Chechoslovakia in 1968. Was it enough to define the USSR as an Evil Empire and declared a Holly War against? Hardly, in my view. The danger, the West saw, was in spreading of anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist ideology, which could cut-off the major sources of labor, raw materials and markets. That thread was dangerous even when it would came from a small country, if found appealing to wide masses and spread. Ideology can be defeated only by proving it inferior and presenting the more attractive to the wide masses alternative, eventually.

It seems to me, ironically (giving the extream anti-religious stand of Communism), its main idea of equality is very close to the main idea of Cristianity.

rshowalter - 12:26pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1374 of 1375)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"At least until the trust is firmly established."

Even when trust is "firmly established" part of it is, usually, openness to checking - because anxiety is normal, and nobody is perfect, or perfectly forthright.

"But I think, in a matters of strategic nuclear arms, pretty good checking is already in place.

I think so, too. But since fears of first stikes are real, for the mechanics of taking down weapons to work well, checking may have to be "more than rationally needed" to accomodate the real human fears.

Now you make points that may be just as you say them, or subject to modification, but points that, in any event, must be subject to checking, and explanation that works for people who not now believe the view you express:

"The real intentions are harder to judge."

absolutely.

"During the Cold War, the West proclaimed that the real intention of Russia is to establish the Communism all over the world. Which, by itself, presented no danger, just like any branch of religion or phylosophy, unless attempted to be imposed by force."

I certainly believed in the probability of imposition of communist views by force. And the repressions of Stalin and others made me, and most others in the West, quite afraid. Your view may be right, without modification, or part of a more complex truth. But if so, it needs to be argued for -- minds have to change.

rshowalter - 12:26pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1375 of 1375)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"This, in my view, was rarely the case, except events in Hungary in 1956 and in Chechoslovakia in 1968. Was it enough to define the USSR as an Evil Empire and declared a Holly War against? Hardly, in my view."

There was a conscious decision, among politicians and military people, that the USSR must be resisted and that, to do it, it was going to be necessary to "scare the death out of the American people." Do you think American and other western forces acted unreasonably, and in an out of proportion way? I tend to agree, certainly up to a point. But to persuade, you are going to have to argue for this, document this - because people aren't convinced of what you say.

"The danger, the West saw, was in spreading of anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist ideology, which could cut-off the major sources of labor, raw materials and markets. That threat was dangerous even when it would came from a small country, if found appealing to wide masses and spread."

Ideology was certainly part of it. But the whole response was complex - (I'm not offering excuses here - that's just the fact) and involved a great deal of deception including deception where one group of government officials decieves both other government officials and the public.

Ideology can be defeated only by proving it inferior and presenting the more attractive to the wide masses alternative, eventually.

We agree in general, but I'm sure we'd differ on specifics right here.

"It seems to me, ironically (giving the extream anti-religious stand of Communism), its main idea of equality is very close to the main idea of Cristianity."

Yes, and the horrors historically perpetrated by Christianity were sometimes terrible. And the horrors of Communism, as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, are wrenching, too.

Americans, I think, had good reasons to want to fight Communism.

But the Cold War ought to be OVER.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense