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 - 05:22pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3978 of 3992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 5/16/01 4:10pm

There are times when I think your vision is distorted, and I've sometimes said so.

But I think you're saying something profoundly important here, something you've argued well for in the past -- and something where the world, and the United States, has to do much better than it has done.

Getting facts straight is a central issue here.

You ask some profound, deeply important questions:

" If the military expansion and the aggression has no cost to most and even great benefits to some, what will prevent it, no matter the kind of Administration."

" As Mad. Albright mentioned on the arguments on bombing of Serbia: "What for do we have such a fine military if we can't use it?" "

These are questions that are important, for Americans, and important for the whole world to ask about America. --

But America isn't an isolated case -- similar questions need to apply to all countries with militaries, to some degree or another.

If such questions had been more sensibly asked, in the 1940's and 1950's, at a number of points - of the USSR and of other nations, too, we would probably be living in a better world.

Since there are always special interests arguing for war - how can we arrange that there are also effective, practical arguments for peace?

We need better answers than we have -- but the job is more possible than it used to be.

We've talked some about these questions before -- and here is an area where, it seems to me, you and I and gisterme ought to share a considerable body of common views.

One thing we surely need to do is keep real human costs in mind. We're talking about something deadly serious here -- not a game.

possumdag - 05:30pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3979 of 3992)
Possumdag@excite.com

How far right is someone who makes the comment that the media is left?

gisterme - 05:32pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3980 of 3992)

rshowalter wrote: "...NMD is feared because, if it worked, or if it destabilized treaties, it would upset a balance of terror...."

But on the other hand if NMD (working or not) could be used as a tool to promulgate the disassembly of the world's strategic nuclear arsenals it may well eliminate the need for a "balance of terror" (and itself).

Personally, I prefer the elimination of the "balance of terror" to the continuation of status quo.

rshowalter - 05:35pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3981 of 3992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A good deal farther right than I am, and I've gotten along happily with a lot of Republicans, first and last.

gisterme -- what makes you think of something as "left" -- would there be any criteria you could share with us?

As for me, I'm looking back at discussions about what we need and want for a free and fair press - back soon with some references.

I think some things in this thread bear on almarst's very good questions in 3977 .

rshowalter - 05:42pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3982 of 3992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I sent a letter to a lawyer of Ted Turner's, referring (no doubt in error) to our Putin-stand in, almarst , as "someone on Putin's staff". I regret the error, but the links are good, and connect to issues of press freedom and checking that connect to almarst's concerns.

2088: rshowalter 4/8/01 8:30am

I'm rereading these links . . . .

rshowalter - 06:06pm May 16, 2001 EST (#3983 of 3992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

All good links so far. On core issues of security -- that deal with Russia, but where similar questions can be asked about China, here are some links and words.

Issues bearing on Russian security, linked to persuasion:

1910: rshowalter 4/2/01 12:47pm .... 1911: rshowalter 4/2/01 12:52pm
1912: rshowalter 4/2/01 2:29pm

( almarst asks : )

- What is NATO for, anyway?

If the purpose is to create a perception and reality of comfort with respect to Russia, how could that comfort, both in reality and in perception, be achieved more sensibly, justly, and cheaply?

That ought not to be a question impossible to answer, both "in general" and in militarily satisfactory detail.

Security requires, among other things, the ablility to impose costs 946: rshowalter 3/12/01 8:52am but they should be calibrated costs. And no nation state can trust without checking, when national security is concerned. So openness is important for peace

Berle's Laws of Power are important, and cannot be escaped. Note Law #3 especially. (948: rshowalter 3/12/01 10:02am ..) Ideas, ideology, and questions of fact all count here.

In setting out ideas, truth is not the only thing that matters -- the idea must be persuasive - not "somehow, too weak." (1037: rshowalter 3/15/01 3:35pm .. ) that means you have to keep at it, and that some persuasive jobs must occur according to the laws of power - and take some staffing.

AND SOME TECHNIQUE -- THE INTERNET CAN HELP.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense