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 - 12:38pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2792 of 2802)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

On September 25, 2000 -- on the basis of an appointment, after conversations on another thread, I made a proposal for nuclear (not conventional) disarmament.
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:33am
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:35am
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:36am

The proposal includes this language:

"After full nuclear disarmament of the U.S. and Russia, the US and Russia, working together, and with their conventional military forces intact, would see to it, through ordinary negotiation and the coordinated use of force, that other nuclear weapon holding nations destroyed their nuclear weapons, in ways that could be clearly checked.

"Rogue nuclear forces would be hunted down, with Russia, the US, and other forces acting in coordination to confiscate their nuclear weapons, and with rogues punished in memorable ways.

"Full nuclear disarmament that leaves other military forces intact is technically easy, and could be done quickly.

"To motivate this nuclear disarmament, the following things would have to happen.

"People would have to see how bad nuclear weapons are, and how first use of nuclear weapons is worse than anything that Hitler did. IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

"For effective elimination of nuclear weapons, and to establish conditions so that they stay eliminated, I believe that artists and other people must make it memorably clear how bad nuclear weapons are, so that no one wants to make them again. So that no one condones their use again. If people remember this, anyone trying to make a nuclear weapon is overwhelmingly likely to be caught and punished. It should be the tradition that the property rights and moral rights of anyone making nuclear weapons should be dismissed, and any and all force mobilized to prevent the building of nuclear weapons or their use.

"The technical part of full world disarmament isn't especially difficult for the nation states that would have to do it. The motivation to eliminate nuclear weapons is the harder part.

I THINK THESE ARE POSSIBLE JOBS -- whereas there is no reason at all to believe missile defense can work -- or that it would effectively eliminate nuclear weapons even if it did work.

rshowalter - 12:39pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2793 of 2802)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The steps above might not take nuclear risks to zero -- but they'd reduce the biggest risk mankind faces to a much smaller risk -- a risk perhaps comparable to earthquake or hurricane risk -- terrible enough, but survivable for the world and most people in it.

After posting #266-269, this thread, I then spent the balance of Sept 25 with a person I believed at the time, and still believe, was W.J. Clinton, then Commander in Chief of the U.S. ... The exchange, I believe, makes interesting reading.

Our nuclear policy, on which our lives depend, has never been nearly as well thought out as people suppose.

And now, missile defense, both at the level of doctrine, and at the technical level, continues the ugly, deadly nonsense -- which may destroy the world.

applez0 - 12:42pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2794 of 2802)

Cookiess - additionally, a loony dictator, by nature is a statesman, i.e. ruler of a nation ... and therefore has a responsibility for its continued existence for his own existence as its ruler. (You've already elaborated upon this in your deterrence bit).

The person most willing to strike the U.S. is an individual or a conspiracy of a few individuals. Their abilities are limited by their resources, and a missile is usually way out of their range, or unattractive in any case (too bulky, components are too well-watched by int'l security authorities). Better to get an affordable and effective weapon, pack in a Ryder truck or fishing boat and bomb someplace. NMD does not protect us against this most likely 'mad bomber' scenario.

Madness that presents a direct threat to the US is unlikely to manifest in a dictator, a submarine commander, or any other *large organizational body* where they can be easily monitored and stopped...as well as have an interest in protecting the existence of that organizational body.

applez0 - 12:49pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2795 of 2802)

rshowalter - "IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS."

True, neither is it right to murder someone, but we do so anyway. Our best compromise solution is to keep the everpresent risk of annihilation of all parties through M.A.D. deterrence, and make sure that these weapons only fall into the hands of responsible large organizational bodies (nations) that have a committment to the continued existence of their nation/people - and by extension, regime. Meanwhile, cutting down overall numbers of nuclear weapons, even as the potential target listing grows, reducing our deterrence against other large powers to a largely 'theoretical' state (like China's current nuclear force) would be a good idea (and vica versa, of course).

Also, removing all land-based nuclear weapons would also be a boon...making the most of submarine & air forces. (It reduces the credibility of a nuclear strike against your populated land mass)

Incidentally, I take a rather dim view of weaponizing space. I think that would be a horrific breach of international convention and a worse move for continued access to space. Nevermind the spacejunk and 'cascade' risks.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense