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 - 06:06pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3180 of 3207)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 5/3/01 5:16pmOn prohibitions: asbestos used to to be a common material in building. It is now prohibited, I believe, almost everywhere in the world - I don't know anyplace where it is still used as it used to be used.

I'm suggesting that the prohibition of nuclear weapons be considered on somewhat similar terms to the prohibition on asbestos -- knowing what is now known, no one really wants to use asbestos, and what is more, the penalties of doing so, one way or another, are not worth it for anyone.

Now, in a certain sense, the building industries have lost "sovereignty" all over the world -- and for sensible reasons. It isn't particularly onerous.

On inspections, I wrote:

"...With the penalties clear and in place, it seems likely to me that inspections would occur with little fuss."

You responded:

Right, Robert. Just like in Iraq.

Perhaps Bush Sr. was too trusting. I suggested that, because of the seriousness of nuclear weapons, a leader of a nation state refusing inspections for weapons control would no longer be legally protected from assassination of its government officials. I suggested something coercive, and yet not involving troops, because of the seriousness of nuclear proliferation. Perhaps I was being too extreme. I think, in the nuclear case, sufficient force, whatever that is, ought to be brought to bear.

Iraq is refusing inspections. That's a practical problem. As a practical matter, all sorts of things, including things involving weapons, get inspected, and enough force is involved to get the inspecting done. On nuclear inspections, there should be enough force to get the inspecting done. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to find a way to do that, and gracefully, if there was a reasonable international consensus. ( A major problem now is that many groups feel that Saddam has been unfairly singled out -- I'm not talking about unfairly singling any group out. To get inspections with real teeth, in the world as it is, the US and other major nations would have to submit to them -- on a routine basis, when necessary. One of many, many administrative matters handled, usually with little trouble, millions of times a day, all over the world. Inspections have to occur because trust is imperfect, and stakes are hight enough to justify them, under all sorts of circumstances. Where there's reasonable consensus, as there almost always is, this happens without much trouble, and relatively few complain about "loss of sovereinty."

Leadership for nuclear inspections wouldn't have to be fancy -- and would have a very limited job to do.

All sorts of bureacracies involve real people, with all the difficulties, including lust for power, that are involved. People find accomodations -- usually not very expensive or difficult ones. Nuclear inspections after disarmament could be the same.

As you say

" I have to agree that THAT would definately take some serious staffing."

Very many things in the world do require serious staffing. Life is like that. And very many things, on a routine basis, in all sorts of fields, get that staffing.

lunarchick - 06:06pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3181 of 3207)
lunarchick@www.com

Matt your hot link doesn't work for me in Oz.

------

It might be a good thing to look at the world and select the best and most functional democracies .. not ones where a President seems take on super-ordinary powers that voters never envisaged.

Scandianavia seems to be streets ahead of most places in relation to the way government functions. Consultation with the population is a feature of many 'good' democratic nations.

A model of a good, better and best democracy might be thought through. What makes a country a good country, a responsive country, a responsible country?

Were models to be developed as 'standard' .. then the world would be safer .. in that tin-pot egotistical greedy leaderships .. would be brought to heel by their own populations! The corruption often seems to 'drill-down' into the population from the top. If true democracies could be established then matters such as 'checking' would be more feasible via International bodies such as the UN.

rshowalter - 06:11pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3182 of 3207)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Concern about lust for power is a reasonable concern, especially when that power, whether it be military or financial, cannot be checked. And a good reason for reasonable distrust, and reasonable checking in the real world. That applies to EVERYBODY.

People find reasonable, limited ways to accomodate that distrust in most of the places where people have to work together. It very often works, and when it does not, there are often graceful and effective ways that checking can be workably established.

lunarchick - 06:13pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3183 of 3207)
lunarchick@www.com

The psychology of Iraq - formerly Persia - ... what happened .. what went wrong .. Iran hasn't been too impressed with their western neighbour, nor the Kurds, nor the Saudi's ... Does Iraq still have aspirations of grandeur from the days of former Empires ... weren't those Empires particularly cruel and barbaric?

rshowalter - 06:18pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3184 of 3207)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In the case of inspections for nuclear weapons, in a world where these weapons have been prohibited for all nations, I believe that practically everybody would consider risk of assasination no unreasonable penalty for refusing inspections to see that nukes were not in place or preparation.

The sanction would probably never have to be used, because it would make more sense for anybody involved to comply.

Especially since nuclear weapons have no reasonable use but extermination . Not even madmen would want to use them if they knew the consequences, to them and those near to them, if they did so.

There's a quote from Colin Powell, I believe, on that subject, not too long ago.

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense