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?

kapit - 08:03am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2761 of 2776)

Bush Team Vows to Speed Up Work on Missile Shield
By MICHAEL R. GORDON with STEVEN LEE MYERS

"...The goal would not necessarily be to provide an air-tight defense against even a small attack. It would be enough to complicate "a prospective opponent's calculation of success, adding to his uncertainty and weakening his confidence," he said.

I see. Now it is clearer. The Bush administration intends to build a bluff.

Scientists and engineers have explained that the missile defense is very unlikely to work. Tests so far, even in highly contrived simulations, have confirmed what the scientists and engineers have told us.

And even if it were to work, it can be easily defeated by decoys.

But Bush goes forward. One reason, no doubt, is to repay the big defense contractors who contributed to his campaign. But how can Bush justify moving forward rapidly when there is no technological basis to do so? Now we have the answer.

We are to build a bluff. If we have a missile system in place, that may cause the enemy to hesitate. (Hesitate, that is, to use missiles against us. If one reason for this system is to stop a rogue enemy, it may indeed convince him to use other means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. But he would probably have done that, anyway.)

Now what I wonder is this: If we are building a system that is mostly a bluff, do we then falsify reports of its capabilities, putting out bogus test results about successes, so that the ploy is more likely to work? Would the be justifiable as a means of building a better bluff?

Once that question is resolved, then the remaining question would be ... does the American taxpayer agree that building a multibillion dollar bluff is a good idea?

rshowalter - 08:13am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2762 of 2776)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That is a good question. There are other remaining questions, as well.

. What about the interests of people in the rest of the world?

It seems to me that people outside America have not only a right to speak about this, but a duty. Both and individuals and nation states.

And to argue and act in their own interest.

The interest of almost everybody ought to be in peace, which is now a very practical thing.

It is lies, and the reluctance to face them, that, much more than anything else, stand in the way of peace.

And these lies perpetuate a situation that is so unstable, and irresponsible, that it could end the world.

The truth , at the level of checkable fact, ought to be morally forcing here. Facts should be checked. This thread, I believe, is part of that.

vineyfig - 08:27am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2763 of 2776)

As far as "defense" is concerned, Bush's BMD is certainly mainly or only bluff. But he and the military are dead serious about offense. The space-based lasers are really intended to threaten targets on earth, along with other countries' satellite communications systems. This is an offensive, aggressive proposal. Just say NO.

rshowalter - 08:29am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2764 of 2776)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Core risks: gaddissio 3/21/01 11:54pm

Resolution of disputes: lunarchick 3/22/01 6:08am

In general - what are the practical and moral objections to communication, between people in different countries, in clear? With the new technology of communication and information processing , HOW MUCH OF THE DIPLOMATIC APPARATUS FOR CONSTRAINING INFORMATION FLOWS ACTUALLY STANDS UNDER THESE CONVENTIONS? rshowalter 3/22/01 8:10am

rshowalter - 08:37am Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2765 of 2776)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

NEWS AND THE CULTURE OF LYING: How Journalism Really Works
rshowalter 3/22/01 8:11am
rshowalter 3/22/01 8:22am

rshowalter 3/22/01 8:37am ....The CIA was built by people who knew well how to conceal EVERYTHING important in ways that made them impregnible to the journalistic usages Weaver describes.

The military-industrial complex that was well evolved by World War II, and that Eisenhower did so much to advance, but then warned against in his FAREWELL ADDRESS , http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm ,. was highly evolved to evade any compromise of function according to the journalistic usages Weaver describes as "the culture of lying." And remains so.

The defenses of these institutions, however, are far less formidible than they used to be.