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?

almarst-2001 - 10:43am May 15, 2001 EST (#3907 of 3910)

rshowalter 5/15/01 10:11am

"a willingness to consider force as one option among a number, on a coordinated basis, "rogue nations" and "rogue groups" could be disarmed"

A very dangerous proposition.

1. Who will define and identify the "rogue nations" even assuming such thing exists?

2. The use of force is major International crime, unless done in absolutly self-defense circumstances. This is a cornerstone of today's international relations. Otherwise we will see more of the Kosovo-like actions and results.

rshowalter - 10:57am May 15, 2001 EST (#3908 of 3910)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 5/15/01 10:43am

Yes, force of any kind is a dangerous proposition -- but we need a sense of balance, and one thing you know well is that nuclear weapons are very dangerous -- and would be especially so in crazy hands.

You ask key questions:

1. "Who will define and identify the "rogue nations" even assuming such thing exists?"

That would have to be negotiated, very carefully -- and the dangers are real -- but it could be made to work -- with agreement of the major parties. I don't think that power would have to be used, if it were credibly in place. Maybe making it possible would be, in the event, unnecessary. It is certain that if nukes were prohibited for all nations, enforcement would be a much more justifiable propostion.

As you may recall, the suggestion I made in #268, this thread suggested coordination between the USA and Russia, with other nations involved as well..

2. "The use of force is major International crime, unless done in absolutly self-defense circumstances. This is a cornerstone of today's international relations. Otherwise we will see more of the Kosovo-like actions and results."

International relations are negotiated and making an exception here is, to me, much more "thinkable" than some alternatives that are of great concern to the United States for reasons I can understand.

I'm NOT suggesting that the US, or anybody else, go off vigilante style.

I AM saying that, in the real world, with real rule of law, sometimes force is necessary, justified and indispensible.

Dangerous as it no doubt is.

Force is, very often, one option to be considered. And usually, but not always, rejected.

rshowalter - 11:02am May 15, 2001 EST (#3909 of 3910)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Everybody I know is crazy enough, some way or other, that I'd be uneasy with their finger "on the button."

I'm for prohibition of nuclear weapons, myself.

I made a suggestion, and I now it would involve a lot of other things, that still seems workable to me, in 266: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am ... 267: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:33am
268: rshowalt 9/25/00 7:35am

Almarst , you yourself looked at the suggested use of force made in the proposal, and didn't reject it out of hand.

You said that for the proposal to be accepted, a lot of other interdependent things would have to be worked out as well.

rshowalter - 11:13am May 15, 2001 EST (#3910 of 3910)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

One thing that would needed would be a higher level of understanding -- so we'd have less diffuse, more manageable fears:
1182: almarst-2001 3/19/01 12:34pm

Going both ways.

I read agreement, conditional but open minded, here: 2012: almarst-2001 4/5/01 2:44pm

The ten postings, Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (1-10) spaced after 3664 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:18pm .. . show interesting dialog, with both serious concerns, and a serious interest in a fair and stable peace intelligently pursued. I've been proud to be involved in that dialog.

We can do a lot better, for world peace and justice, than we've been doing, and better than we're doing now.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense