New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 12:21pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11916 of 11920)

Next point I'd like to make is one I also made on this thread and elsewhere after September 11th. There is time to think things through, and get things right. It looks to me like there is plenty of room for solution -- a lot of things that might work -- but whether or not that's true, there's time to survey the situation. And find out things about how it actually is that matter for action.

Suppose the United States said the following, clearly and definitely, to the nations of the world.

The United States has decided that it will not permit Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, or (phrase here) to threaten the United States, or its allies, with weapons of mass destruction. Please comment. For us to get this, what would you expect from us?

The insert in (phrase here) above might be "any private group" or "any nation."

What would the representatives of other nations say? Would the responses be uncoordinated, or impossible to meet? Not necessarily.

What would they settle for? ... What could we reasonably ask them to settle for, if decisions reached in the end were "on the record" -- and we wanted STABLE results?

I think that these questions are a lot easier than the challenges of missile defense - - because they are likely to have satisfactory answers. I don't think anyone has to be sentimental at all to believe so.

rshow55 - 12:25pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11917 of 11920)

Here's a fact. Anybody who has studied military matterns ought to know it. Consider two groups, weapons drawn, confronting each other. In order for a surrender or a peace or a defeat to occur with stability, there has to be clear communication, and for things to work, people who fear and distrust each other have to deal with each other with good enough stability so that things don't fall apart.

Taking down hostilities is touchy, and things can very easily fall apart.

Clear communication is vital.

There is no substitute for it -- because stable solutions are hard to get -- impossible if (very many) wrong moves are made.

rshow55 - 12:32pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11918 of 11920)

The "simple" asymptotic solution where one side exterminates the other is distasteful, and also generally impractical. Morality counts, but even if it didn't, you want an end of hostilities where the survivors can and do go on with their lives, and interact, when they have to, peacefully.

rshow55 - 01:11pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11919 of 11920)

There are basic human needs, and knowing them gives a sense of both how we are strong, and how we are fragile. And how our enemies are strong, and how they are fragile. We are MUCH stronger, and less fragile, than our enemies if we just play it straight, on issues of fact and straight dealing, and do things that make military sense. Including things needed for effective deterrance, and effective interdiction.

The tragedy of September 11 probably wouldn't have happened if people in the world had believed that we had usable, flexible, calibrated, powerful deterrants. And given the risks, interdiction as part of the mix of humanly reasonable options can't be ruled out either.

Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need to take into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt
Essay and Image: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
also listed, with comments, in rshowalter 9/24/01 11:05am

Berle's Laws of Power from Power by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y. set out in MD1066 rshowalter 3/16/01 5:36am

These things are very important constraints - - considering them simplifies things, by ruling out a good deal. Consideration also gives a sense of what can reasonably be done. (What can be done at reasonable cost is a subset of what can be explained to the world community.)

We may have to use the force we have - - but ideas also matter. Berle's laws of power include this

Three: Power is invariably based on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder is eventually displaced.

Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them , are vigorous. To the extent that we're not living up to them, we have some work to do --- not very difficult work, if faced. The system of "ideas" that the terrorists, Iraq, and N. Korea have, are contradictory and fragile. Iran has its logical fragilities, too.

Those pressure points at the level of ideas can be powerful -- they'd be overwhelmingly powerful if we had most of the world behind us. As a nation we need to understand, more clearly than we do, why so many in the world are not behind us.

We are looking for stable solutions, with acceptable (minimal) risks to ourselves and others. We can't minimize our risks without considering the needs of other people, long term -- because other people are dangerous animals, as we are ourselves.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense