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?

applez101 - 01:56pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3911 of 3918)

Alarmst -

"The Wrong Debate Over Missile Defense - http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/051401"

On this link, I still hold that some legislation declaring an attack on one's space assets is equal to an attack on your country (application of extraterritoriality) should suffice to deter attacks on those very space assets.

Secondly, the conditions required to launch an effective attack against those assets would remain logistically intense...especially for countries with older tech...making their detection (marshalling grounds, etc.) a lot easier. This would allow a whole period of political intervention before such an attack were to happen.

Thirdly, after such a claim of extraterritoriality is made, the bar will have been raised such that any attack against space assets would probably have to be matched by some sort of surface action...making detection all the more likely (assuming something like a conventional attack; since an unconventional assault would probably not require disruption of space assets).

applez101 - 01:56pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3912 of 3918)

I should add, that the lynchpin of this extraterritoriality defense would essentially be an extension of the existing nuclear deterrent.

gisterme - 02:01pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3913 of 3918)

almarst wrote: "...Albanians had by far more legal rights in Kosovo then Hispanics in California or Texas today..."

Bwahahahahaheheeee. You've obviously not spent much time in California or Texas, almarst. If by "rights" you mean the right for ethnic groups to burn each other out of their homes, starve and slaughter each other, children and all, I have to admit that those Balkanese have more rights than Californians or Texans. It has been a long road, almarst, but the USA has managed to grow beyond that kind medieval behavior as accepted practice. You should give up that Milosevic propaganda, almarst; you seem very mislead on this point. Is that somehow the fault of the British too? Sheesh. Perhaps you're trying to begin a stampede of Californians and Texans immigrating toward the Balkans? Fat chance. :-)

I was beginning to think I'd never get a laugh from this thread.

rshowalter - 02:24pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3914 of 3918)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are dangerous misperceptions, all around the world, and if almarst shows some constructions that seem strange to us -- and demonstably false, we also have some constructions, also demonstrably false, but widespread, that have been very, very expensive, and are now very dangerous.

We need right answers -- and in spots, they will be uncomfortable. But everyone is wrong about some significant things.

You, too, gisterme.

We need to sort some things out. Clear views, on the table, help with that. What is explicitly set out can be dealt with.

My sympathy with almarst for feeling the way he does is great, even though I think he's sometimes objectively wrong.

You're sometimes wrong, too, gisterme , and are part of institutions committed to some ideas that are demonstably wrong.

And all involved here are quite capable of deception, and sometimes show it.

If we get some things straight, we'll all be safer.

rshowalter - 02:26pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3915 of 3918)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Everything, except for prohibition of nuclear weapons, is getting more and more and more complicated, and more and more impractical.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous, obsolete menaces, that could easily end the world, and we should take the damn things down.

If we can't do that, we need at the least to work hard at adressing the causes of conflict between nations, getting our feedbacks much cleaner than they've been, and getting the number of nukes, and the probability of their use, both minimized.

We have ways of doing that, now, that are entirely new.

There are very large problems of understanding, persuasion, rule crafting and enforcement -- involving difficulties all over the world. But peace is technically possible, especially in the advanced world, in senses that it has never been possible before.

To make it possible, in some key areas, checking for facts is going to have to become morally forcing.

rshowalter - 02:27pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3916 of 3918)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd add that a lot of people on this thread are working hard, and that's progress.

rshowalter - 02:31pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3917 of 3918)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm trying to keep some promise to almarst.
3892: rshowalter 5/15/01 6:45am

I still think this:
3890: rshowalter 5/15/01 6:17am ... 3891: rshowalter 5/15/01 6:25am

rshowalter - 02:33pm May 15, 2001 EST (#3918 of 3918)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Russians have some very understandable fears -- with a lot more justification than a lot of the fears of the right wing of the Republican party, I'd say

and it makes sense to adress them.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense