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?

gisterme - 03:00pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3160 of 3166)

wocooper wrote: "...a pissant "rogue nation" aiming to strike at the U.S. would be more likely to do it with bargain basement technologies like chemical toxins poured into a water supply, or fertilizer bombs, it doesn't make sense to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a highly speculative missile defense system."

In case you haven't noticed, wr, those "bargain basement" attacks have already been taking place around the world for some time. But which "pissant rogue nation" is responsible for any particular attack? And shocking as those bombings are in individual human terms, their strategic impact to a developed nation is less than flea-bites to a horse.

It seems that the people behind most of those attacks (jihadists) are diligently working to make their strategic impact greater. Their goal is to form a "greater Islamic nation" from among the Arab kingdoms and principalities.

Keep in mind that the jihadi campaign is one of perception. The ability to carry out thief-in-the-night attacks that result in flea-bites could hardly have as much symbolic impact as posession of nuclear tipped ICBMs when it comes to coagulating small countries into a single nation.

So Dubya might not be so dumb after all. Maybe he's just using his crystal ball.

rshowalter - 03:14pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3161 of 3166)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A lot of smart military people are scared to death -- and that, it seems to me, makes good sense.

The question is how to manage the threats, and make them less, in ways that work.

rshowalter - 03:20pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3162 of 3166)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Core problems: escalation, and failure of "rational behavior" assumptions. rshowalter 2/17/01 5:46am
rshowalter 2/17/01 1:59pm

And there's a definition problem about "threat?! rshowalter 2/17/01 2:05pm

rshowalter - 03:29pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3163 of 3166)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalt 10/27/00 10:48am

rshowalt 10/29/00 4:12am
jorian_s 10/29/00 2:51pm
rshowalt 10/29/00 6:16pm
rshowalt 10/29/00 8:38pm

...A combination of consensus morality, and knowledge of the military ineffectiveness of these weapons, keeps them from being used. A similar combination of consensus morality and knowledge of their military ineffectiveness, combined with monitoring for nuclear testing and other enforcement,would stand a good chance of keeping nuclear weapons from being made again, or being used again, once they were taken down. rshowalt 10/31/00 12:10pm

But it would take excellent staff work, and a lot of it, to get things right enough to trust. Basic facts would have to be worked through to reliable closure and explained effectively, at rational and emotional levels, widely.
rshowalt 11/2/00 12:17pm
rshowalt 11/2/00 12:20pm

rshowalter - 03:32pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3164 of 3166)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some basic facts about people need to be understood, including facts about obedience.
rshowalter 2/16/01 1:29pm
rshowalter 2/17/01 5:41am

rshowalter - 03:37pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3165 of 3166)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Once nuclear weapons were taken down (and yes, I know how hard that would be) -- institutions and moral ideas would have to be carefully, firmly, rightly placed, so that recurrance of nuclear weapons was very unlikely -- because of effective prohibitions, and means to make it very unlikely that anyone could profit from it.

. . . . . . . . .

That would take leadership from a number of countries -- not just America.

But moves in the direction of reductions -- along with careful study and staffing to see if full disarmament was possible -- might make the world far safer, long before we achieved full disarmament. But I'm not convinced that would have to take so long.

None of this, of course, is inconsistent with continued research on missile defense.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense