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 - 02:04pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3515 of 3547)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The question

"What do these positions (or values) lead to?"

is a good and practical one. Different people can see things differently because of different assumptions about facts, and different accepted values.

Assumptions about fact can be checked , and should be, when the issue matters, by a matching process.

Values can also be checked, in significant ways, by considering their consequences -- consequences that one chooses to accept, when one chooses particular values.

With current weapons (quite apart from nuclear weapons) and with weapons that must be anticipated, the value of totally invulnerable military superiority, and total disregard for non-american costs and casualties have consequences. Consequences that occur in a real world, not the world we might choose. Do we wish to choose these consequences?

Is it decent for us to do so?

Setting issues of morality apart (and not many people really wish to do this) is this value of total dominance and invulnerability, even if attainable for a short while, in American interest?

I don't see how it can possibly be. I don't see how George W. Bush or his senior officers can think these values are right for America either, if they work the matter through.

carriglas0 - 02:44pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3516 of 3547)

Mr. Rumsfeld's announcent today could not be more ill timed or provocative. It has been done without national consensus but will have a future impact felt by us all. A very sad day, there are sure to be more. This administration would turn back the clock at the expense of our country and the world.

rshowalter - 02:55pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3517 of 3547)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It isn't turning back the clock. A lot of past actions, that made sense at the time, would seem crazy this time.

Where are our enemies?

Why are we manufacturing them?

And can't we find better use for the money and manpower?

dmassiah - 02:57pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3518 of 3547)

Well the idiots still have a a cold war mentality that the rest of the world left during the late 80's. These guys are very dangerous we are going backwards our economy is in trouble, foreign relationships are in jeapordy, and our environment is under attack.

The Supreme Court elect this idiot and we the American people need to regain control. Before we have a serious conflict on our hands.

Anyone can see that this admininstration is out of touch with reality. LOOK AT THE LAST 100 DAYS.

We do not nor can afford another ARMS race, we need alternative fuels (California& GAS prices), we need to protect our environment from ozone gases, We need leadership in building alliances.

Hell we need a President that works after 5pm.

rshowalter - 03:01pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3519 of 3547)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Nuclear weapons produce mass death on a scale that makes the Kerrey-Vietnam killing story seem tiny (which it is not) -- here are some links on the relation between these stories: rshowalter 5/2/01 5:31pm

rshowalter - 03:07pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3520 of 3547)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

3406: rshowalter 5/2/01 5:32pm .... In the Guardian Talk threads and in this Missile Defense thread, Dawn Riley and I have worked to focus patterns of human reasoning and persuasion, and problems with human reasoning and persuasion.

These citations deal with that:
2565: rshowalter 4/24/01 7:56pm
2566: rshowalter 4/24/01 8:09pm
2567: rshowalter 4/24/01 8:10pm

We believe that controversies that could not be resolved before may be resolvable now.

The techniques we (and so many other people on the net) are using to get things to closure are the same techniques that often work in well conducted jury trials.

Perhaps we're too optimistic, but we feel that, in small part because of our efforts, the risk of nuclear destruction may be coming down.

rshowalter - 03:34pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3521 of 3547)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

3327: rshowalter 5/5/01 10:06am ... deals with work which, at the level of facts (not interpretations) is uncontested.

These facts are important when we think about missile defense. In the past, the US has been an agressive nation - - it is not necessarily unreasonable for other nations to distrust us, and fear us -- including nations acting, by almost all standards "in good faith." http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html

THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan , National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms Vancouver, Canada March 6, 1996

(26 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense