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 - 01:58pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2004 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think Russia, the EU, and all other nations that understand how terrible bombing is, should work together to oppose it. That seems to me to be a practical thing to work on, at the level of moral argument, and at the level of international law.

If bombing nations were effectively charged money ( perhaps with a "punitive damage" factor such as often occurs in law ) for what is euphemistically called "collateral damage" -- then the world would be a far, far safer and more stable place.

It bombing was no longer "cheap" -- the United States would stop doing it, or do it MUCH less often. And in the world today, with respect to both nuclear and conventional bombing, it is the United States that is the basic problem.

almarst-2001 - 02:06pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2005 of 2010)

Spy plane secrets revealed - http://www.msnbc.com/news/554221.asp

"... So what governs military aircraft?"

"Well, the United States has an air defense identification zone that extends 200 miles off our coast. We require that any foreign military aircraft flying within that zone must report in or risk retaliatory action..."

"... The Pentagon is also saying that the plane has “sovereign immune status” that precludes the Chinese from searching or detaining it without U.S. permission"

"Good try! says Alfred Rubin, professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. While the plane is U.S. property, because it is a military aircraft that landed on Chinese territory, the Chinese have overlapping jurisdiction, he says. He adds that if a Chinese military craft were to land in Alaska under similar circumstances, the Chinese would have to expect we would give it a thorough examination."

rshowalter - 02:13pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2006 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The moral acceptability of bombing of civilian targets is historically very recent - basically a product, like the Nazi death camps, of World War II.

The worst kind of bombing, by far, is bombing by nuclear weapons. This kind of bombing is worse, in number that would be killed, and in ugliness of the deaths, than anything in history. This kind of mass destruction threatens to destroy the world.

It we can't outlaw nuclear bombs, we can take big steps in that direction, steps to reduce that destruction.

Renunciation of first strikes with nuclear weapons by all parties - elminating their use in agressive threat behavior.

Very large reductions in numbers of nuclear weapons -- a stepping back from "Mutually Assured Destruction," which is what makes sense if first strikes are concievably "militarily advantageous" to "Mutually Assured Deterrance" -- much lower numbers of nuclear weapons that make sense when a first stike cannot be "militarily advantageous."

I think that it MAY be possible, in a longer term, to outlaw nuclear weapons -- and to do so in a larger framework -- with a longer term objective -- the outlawing of bombing -- and that includes terrorist bombing. But these simpler, smaller steps could keep us alive -- and without them, I believe that it is likely that we will all die.

rshowalter - 02:14pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2007 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The attempt to set out the arguments for the reduction, and if possible the outlawing of nuclear weapons, taking full advantage of the new technical means of the internet, seems very worthwhile, and it seems to me that it has the potential to do great good even if it falls short. Because the need for us to learn to negotiate effective, reasonably calibrated defenses is very great, and depends on our ability to be successful in complex negotiations, with agreements and technical arrangements that work. A "dry run" might make real closure possible.

There are enormous reasons we should all want to improve the openness of international relations, and get rid of lies. It may always be a dangerous world, but it is safest if information flows are clear -- if surprise attacks are very difficult to do. If attacks that are illegal under international law are very difficult to get away with. Increasing out socio-technical means for finding truth is therefore important for prosperity and peace. I think this thread shows something, in a small way, about what might be accomplished.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense