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 - 11:04am May 17, 2001 EST (#4039 of 4044)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

From the Editors of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:

FAITH-BASED REASONING http://www.editors@sciam.com/2001/0601issue/0601rennie.html

" Scientists are often lampooned as living in an ivory tower, but lately it seems that it is the scientists who are grounded in reality and the U.S. political establishment that is floating among the clouds. In March the Bush administration gave up a campaign promise to control emissions of carbon dioxide and withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol. "We must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers," President George W. Bush wrote in a letter to four Republican senators. "This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change."

" Yet incomplete knowledge doesn't seem to be a concern when it comes to strategic missile defense. . . . . .

. . . . . (details setting out the predominance of evidence against MD feasibility)

" It would be nice not to have to shell out money for emissions controls. It would be nice to have a magic shield against all nuclear threats. It would be nice to be perfectly sure about everything, to get 365 vacation days a year and to spend some of that time on Mars. But we can't confuse wants with facts. As Richard Feynman said, "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." The dangers of ignoring its messages are greater than merely making politicians look foolish. "

gisterme - 12:08pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4040 of 4044)

rshowalter wrote: "...On deterrance:

If Hitler's German sociotechnical system had been as vulnerable in 1939 as the US sociotechnical system is right now Hitler, monster though he was, would have been deterred...."

That's nonsense. Vulnerable to what? Deterred by what? The point of that statement is what, Robert? Have you decided that America today is like Germany in 1939? If it were then it's "sociotechnical system" as you call it WOULD be just as invulnerable as Germany's back then. Are you trying to re-scope your Maj. Strasser stereotype to include all Americans everywhere now? Even yourself? Wow, what a really strange statement that is, Robert...you must have left something out that you meant to include.

almarst-2001 - 12:12pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4041 of 4044)

Robert,

What do you think was the reason for dramatic success of the Marshall's plan for Europe after the WWII, compare to the dismal results of the tremendowsly greater relative investments of the Germany in the formerly Eastern part - the country in many orders of magnitude better shape, not destroyed in the war, having a highly educated and healthy human potential, much smaller size and no significant language and culture difference from the West Germany?

rshowalter - 12:21pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4042 of 4044)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Just clicked in, to see the two previous great responses. This won't take too long, but here are quick responses that I don't think I'll want to modify:

. gisterme , I wasn't meaning to be derogatory -- and the US IS vulnerable -- I'll review why.

. almarst , you ask a wonderful question, and I think a core point about the answer concerns paradigm conflict impasse -- for the last couple of hours I've been reviewing references to that, working on your previous two postings.

back pretty soon. Thanks ....

rshowalter - 12:57pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4043 of 4044)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , my argument on deterrance that you comment on in gisterme 5/17/01 12:08pm was addressed to concerns that Russians, Chinese, and MANY other people DO have, whether you like them to be concerned or not -- and the concerns can be considered as hypothetical examples, for purposes of reasoning, whether you agree with them or not, and whether they happen to be right or not.

Now, I don't have to be claiming that US leaders are anything like as bad as Hitler (though that is a possibility on some people's minds) to say

. Can the US be deterred from invasion or other agressive action against your country's interest? Certainly. Even Hitler, the ultimate monster, would have cared about the interests of his own country if Germany faced the vulnerabilites that the US faces now.

Now, for the hypothesis, let me set out Hitler's basic assumptions -- terrible assumptions on the basis of which he was "trying to be beautiful" -- and did seem beautiful to many who followed him. I set out "hitlerian" assumptions in 3947: rshowalter 5/15/01 7:40pm :

" There is an "ideal Germany" to be advanced at all costs, I am the person to conceptualize it and impose it, and there will be NO value being placed on any nation, group, or individual who do not fit my elaborate, philosophically ornate, arbitrary conception."

I've read a good deal about Hitler and his followers, including the subverted academics who did so much to advance his cause, and think that's a pretty good description. Within the framework of those assumptions Hitler and his followers made terrible mistakes, in their own terms, but they did try to be rational.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense