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 - 07:17pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3716 of 3725)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?11@174.40uTaKdincj^3394726@.f0ce57b

I wrote: "...And there are plenty of "pure technology" problems that are operationally impossible to solve...." and gisterme responded ... "...but many more that aren't or won't be. For how many hundred centuries was the wheel too big of a technology problem to solve?"

Shortly after people had clear ideas about how to build a wheel, they had wheels nearly as good as the ideas -- but it took a lot of time to get the ideas straight.

If a design for missile defense that was actually workable (for real threats) was actually available - at least we wouldn't have the worst of both worlds -- disrupted treaties without any technical alternative to the treaties even remotely viable.

There are plenty of technical jobs that are impossible, and plenty more where the cost isn't even remotely justified. And, these days, plenty of things that "look good on paper" after careful checking get into trouble -- but precious little that "looks bad on paper" after good checking ever works -- unless the error identified is actually fit, and a new design, that does look good on paper, to high engineering standards, gets crafted.

If DOD had that discipline, the idea of MD might be worth limited funds.

gisterme - 07:35pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3717 of 3725)

almarst wrote: "...If there is a nation strong and safe enough to afford the morality in its actions, it must be US first. Can you name a one reason why this was/is not a case?..."

Although I can't agree with your preceeding judgements as to the "criminality" of US actions in Kosovo, or Iraq, I will certainly agree that the US has identified a couple of ways that militry force should not be used in the new world environment. Personally, I have no problem with US participation in the coalition effort to rescue Kuwait. However, this "messing around" with no-fly zones has seemed very costly for the return. Probably did save the lives of many Khurds and Sheites though. You already know how I feel about Saddam, almarst, so I won't beat that dead horse any longer. You also aready know how I feel about US involvement in Kosovo. To tell the truth, I believe the US would dearly like to find a way to disengage there and make an entry in the "Lessons Learned" log.

As to the referenced statement I agree completely. If the US wants to maintain a leadership role, it will go first. That's what leaders do. All the old excuses and boogy-men from the cold war are pretty much dead or canned and placed in inventory. The US really does need to bring its actions into conformity with the level of morality it preaches, whatever that may be, and then remain consistant. There's no reason why it shouldn't and I have good hope that the new US administration might value truthfulness more than the last.

rshowalter - 07:42pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3718 of 3725)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"The US really does need to bring its actions into conformity with the level of morality it preaches, whatever that may be, and then remain consistant. There's no reason why it shouldn't . . . "

That would be wonderful.

applez101 - 08:21pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3719 of 3725)

Gisterme - "A chilling point, applez. Why should we continue to support a paradigm that needs "full potential of destruction" as a prerequisite to viability?"

Unfortunately I don't see NMD as a viable alternative, and the very existence and relative ease of construction of these devices demands suitable defence against them.

gisterme - 08:35pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3720 of 3725)

almarst wrote: "...I never understood the rational behind the US-Russia animosity ...If not for this, you must believe the propaganda the US was afraid of the spread of the Communism on its own soil. But one must ask - If it is the prosperous and cherished democracy, why whould it be afraid such thing may happen? Alternativelly, if it is nevertheless afraid, may be it is not so prosperows and cherished after all? It can't both...."

Pleased to discuss the past so long as it is constructive...

The animosity was between the US and the Soviet Union (read Stalin) not just Russia. The US really was afraid that soviet style communism might somehow take root here. The fear was that somehow our liberty would be lost. Russians today should fear the same thing. While in hindsight, it all seems a bit silly, at the time it seemed deadly serious. Stalin seemed to want to gobble up any place he could and install a puppet government there either directly or by proxy. US began to do same especially "by proxy" to "contain" that (please accept "none righteous" here, almarst). But the effort was perceived to be more than military. The REAL paranoia here was that the US communist party was a thinly disguised Soviet proxy, ready and willing to do the bidding of Stalin, and that there were all kinds of "closet" communists capable of all sorts of subversion if left to their own wiles. This was true paranoia. The Soviets were extremely effective at creating the perception that they had far greater military technology and power than they actually did. The US took the bait, and swallowed that perception hook, line and sinker..."Bang!"...starting gun for the cold war heat of the arms race. Whatever the degree of truth behind the reasons for that fear, the fear was quite real, almarst. If you think of fear in the US at that time as propaganda, you've believed somebody else's propaganda. I'm sincerely trying to "shine the light" a bit here almarst. I was here at that time and got to feel that fear myself, even as a child.

WRT prosperity, I don't think that anyone would disagree that the US has been amazingly prosperous throughout its history. The US has always been a nation of merchants. Its overriding interst has always been maintenance of free trade.

So far as "cherised" goes, as applied to Liberty, things haven't changed much in the US since 1776. I'll echo the words of one of the American founding fathers...perhaps worth hearing in every struggling republic or democracy today, even Iraq:

"I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death." - Patric Henry

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense