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 - 02:07pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3841 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'll be another hour, at least. But I do have a few things to say now.

One is, that you need to avoid procedural muddles that can keep things from happening - the history of nuclear disarmament has been full of them, and some similar problems, in an academic context, are set out in http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/highlights/essay_kay_lostcause/index.html . You have to do a few things, that are simple enough that they can be done. If an organization is full of veto power, you must find or craft another oganization where the necessary things can be done.

How difficult would it be to set up an organization of nations that set different boundaries for military and commercial "national waters" and "national airspace", charged money penalties for violation of the declared boundaries, and could collect the money? An American international lawyer should find this a fairly easy question to answer- with many answers. You should find it an easy question, too.

A too simple example, for a "thought experiment.
If bombing from airplanes were outlawed -- something that may not be possible, but is worth thought -- then you'd have the stability Russia would need without nukes? Wouldn't you? -- There are other ways of getting that stability -- but this is still worth considering as a thought experiment.

China now has the capablity to know down the United States East coast power grid, or, if she does not, could have it in a week. Russia certainly could, too. Essentially every medical installation in the US is vulnerable. With a combination of intervention by code on the internet, and a very few physical interventions, the US sociotechnical system is deeply vulnerable in essentially uncountable ways.

Are you really incapable of fashioning incentives and deterrants that serve real peace.

Couldn't it be done increasing the real security of all concerned, including the United States?

I think the answer has to be yes.

Back in another hour, or a little more.

Will be checking for comments if anybody has any.

Nukes are NOT necessary for military and political stability between nations.

rshowalter - 02:23pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3842 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst , on the political part of your question -- the way you influence American politicians, and people who influence them, is to talk to them.

There are no legal or moral barriers that should keep Russia from doing this, so long as what is done is openly done.

Queen Elisabeth, and many on the Privy Council, could provide good advice here.

Status exchanges matter rather more than you may imagine in DC, and money matters, I suspect, a little less.

rshowalter - 03:25pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3843 of 3844)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some things everybody knows, of course. For instance the primordial fact that, in thinking through possibilities of interaction in negotiation, one needs to ask two questions of your "adversary" or "counterpart"at each and every step. These questions are:

" how do you please him?" ... and

" how do you hurt him?"

Naturally, in control problems, one needs both pluses and minuses.

If one proceeds in negotiations where, at every step, one has these answers, one is prepared, and can hope for satisfactory results. If one is drawn onto ground where one has not pre-thought answers to these questions, one is at a disadvantage, and should play for time.