Forums

toolbar Click Here for NYTimes.com's Mutual Funds Special



 [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 (1830 previous messages)

rshowalter - 01:14pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1831 of 1833) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

ARMED TO EXCESS By Bob Kerrey ... NYT , OpEd, March 2

President Bush's announcement in his first address to Congress that it is time to "discard cold war relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs" is an important step in the right direction.

The risk of a nuclear attack still poses the greatest single threat to our survival. Implementing steep cuts in global nuclear arms is essential to our national interest. But since 1991, when the treaty known as Start I was signed, reductions in Washington's and Moscow's arsenals of nuclear weapons have been stalled by a Democratic president who was afraid of the political consequences of "unilateral" reductions and a Republican Congress that changed federal law to prevent the president from going below Start I levels.

The result is that our arsenal is well beyond levels needed to destroy any nation that threatens the United States. We currently have 7,200 strategic warheads that could be launched against any potential enemy. Consider this: Just one of our Ohio class Trident submarines can deliver 192 separate warheads to individual targets in Russia, each of which is roughly 6 to 30 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima at the end of World War II.

Maintaining excessively high numbers of strategic weapons is not only costly to American taxpayers, but it forces the Russians to maintain a strategic and tactical arsenal far beyond what they can afford to maintain. Russian military leaders have been urging their political leaders to reduce their arsenal to a thousand warheads or less for this very reason.

Part of the reason that Congress has not been pressing for steep reductions is that members of Congress have never seen the actual missile targeting plans developed by the military in response to presidential directives. For twelve years in the Senate eight of which I served on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence I tried without success to get this briefing. In fact, I was unable to find a single member of the Senate who had been briefed. Mr. Bush should order his military commanders to brief members of Congress on the targeting plans.

I have no doubt that President Bush would gain Republican and Democratic support if more were known about the details. A map of Russia that contained thousands of red circles each indicating a nuclear detonation would convincingly show the extent of the excess nuclear capability we have.

In addition to reducing the arsenal, Congress must also expand the Nunn- Lugar cooperative threat reduction program. This program has provided Russia with roughly $450 million a year to reduce unneeded nuclear materials in a safe and swift fashion. But the program has had only wavering support in Congress. That must end.

We should provide substantially more money to help Russia dismantle nuclear weapons and safely dispose of bomb-grade fissile materials. President Bush expressed support for this concept during the campaign. Now it's time to back up that commitment. If he delivers on an immediate and substantial reduction in the American nuclear arsenal and pushes to expand the Nunn-Lugar program, he will have done the nation and the world a great service.

Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator, is president of New School University.

rshowalter - 01:18pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1832 of 1833) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Lunarchick's right about peace keeping.

And for peace in a stable world that is not too dangerous, or paralyzed, you need balanced, calibrated, sufficient but not excessive levels of threat, and defense with respect to threat.

At the animal level, here's a fact.

. People are dangerous animals, but also capable of helping each other in important ways by complex cooperation.

Therefore, it pays to be careful, but polite.

Exterimination threats - and nuclear weapons in first strike mode are just that -- don't make sense for human animals.

Especially because of a biological fact. Quite often, people who are threatened too much, or injured to much, will fight to the death.

rshowalter - 01:22pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1833 of 1833) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think we should outlaw nukes, and that we can do so effectively, in combination with other states, in ways that increase the real security of all concerned.

That could only happen, and should only happen, when the people involved are comfortable with the decision.

That will take a lot of talking, and staff work, and the ability to check facts in a field where there's been a lot of deception, misunderstanding, and terror for half a century.

 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