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?

jasontyer - 05:44pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2914 of 2919)

LET'S LOOK AT TERROR IN TODAY'S TERMS. I think plastique, fitted to the chest, and effective while silent and independant of large, central scale funding/planning. Let's look at these, not some ridiculous plan designed to stop some phantom Lex Luthor from destroying the earth.

rshowalter - 05:56pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2915 of 2919)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If we look at terror in today's terms -- we need to discuss the morality of bombing -- something invented and developed in the 20th century.

Worth doing. But the ultimate terror - the ultimate use of the logic of terror -- and, to many terrorists, the legitimation of terror tactics, comes from nuclear policy -- the subject of this thread.

At some time in the future, outlawing all forms of bombing, and finding ways to enforce the prohibition effectively, would be a wonderful thing for the whole world.

But for now, doesn't it seem that getting the world well back from destruction of the whole earth ought to be job #1.

rshowalter - 05:59pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2916 of 2919)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With so much unclear, it seems to me that a "dry run" set up to establish facts might do great good.

rshowalter 3/31/01 3:23pm
rshowalter 3/31/01 3:30pm ....:

Some things take discussion and staff work. So that real people can have enough time, and see things from enough angles, and ask enough questions, to come to workable, comfortable solutions. Perhaps something along the following lines might be workable.

953: rshowalter 3/12/01 1:24pm

956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm

"It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished after these answers were thrashed out.

Goals:

" Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

"work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --( without pseudonyms) - say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

"With "shadow government" teams for nonparticipants if necessary.

"There are plenty of distinguished, proven people who would probably be available it this were being reasonably done. Many people care, and care a lot, about these issues.

" Something along those lines might actually get the key facts straight, and get those facts widely enough understood that the VERY ugly impasse of the last decade might come to be clarified, and resolved to a form better than the terrifying and ugly situation we have today.

"This might be difficult. But since we know that "alternatives" such as anti-missile defense (as so far engineered or explained) don't work at all, it seems well worth doing.

"And a lot of lies could be swept away.

"Any world leader, any country, any interest group, could participate. No world leader, no country, no interest group, should be let off with an assertion based on no more than bald statement.

"On the internet, a great deal could be established, before witnesses, pretty quickly.

" There may be "many different points of view" but on key facts, there are many fewer when people are using their real names, the statements are public, and impartial people can be asked to judge facts that are in dispute.

rshowalter - 06:05pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2917 of 2919)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

At the level of diplomacy, where it is sometimes a matter of great moment when somebody gives somebody else a phone call, complex things may never close at all. There just isn't enough discussion and fact gathering for convergence.

To get some of our military problems sorted out may take a great deal of talking.

One intention of this thread has been to provide a model of what might be involved, that could be a point of departure. If on "imagines" that "almarst .." (a stand in for Putin) really was President Putin - then you'd imagine that some negotiations have gone very far toward focusing what peace would take. And of course, that's not being claimed. What is being claimed is that the logic of the process, and the facts set out and focused, can be constructive.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense