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 - 09:29am May 22, 2001 EST (#4145 of 4157)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Exploitation in the Marxist sense has been an issue - as it has been throughout history - but a secondary one. It isn't so much that wealth has been stolen. It is that wealth has not been created, because the cooperations wealth creation takes have not happened often and consistently enough.

joy..... - 10:41am May 22, 2001 EST (#4146 of 4157)

Good mornig Robert
I have returned to
write Science poems
Just wanted to drop by. Gotta go....

see ya....

rshowalter - 12:46pm May 22, 2001 EST (#4147 of 4157)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Editorial New Scientist 12 May, 2001

Have a little faith: The cold war is over, so why can't the US trust anyone? http://www.newscientist.com/editorial/editorial.jsp?id=ns229060

" THE world can only handle so many guns, bombs and missiles. Beyond the minimum needed to keep the peace, building up larger stockpiles of destructive new weapons is a really bad idea. Even unused, they cost a fortune and make potential adversaries edgy, leading to a spiralling arms race. It must also be better for the world's governments to agree on limiting weapons--subject to real verification--than have one or two countries wielding big sticks to keep everyone else in line.

" So New Scientist, like many other commentators, has watched in horror as the new US administration mounts an assault on arms controls. The message seems to be that multilateral safeguards are worthless--the US trusts nobody but itself. The rest of the world can fall in line or not, but George W. Bush is going to do things his way.

" American actions have made this abundantly clear. First, in February, the CIA accused Iran of having thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the US must demand an inspection of the country to verify its claim. Yet Bush hasn't done so. He appears to have no faith in the treaty. Worse, he is threatening to scrap the treaty prohibiting defences against long-range missiles, in a gamble that may or may not shield Americans but will create more missiles (see p 5). Finally, he seems set on destroying a six-year effort to give teeth to the treaty banning biological weapons (see p 4).

" Designing a protocol to verify the Biological Weapons Convention was always going to be a tough task. It's a lot harder to keep track of germs than nuclear warheads or even nerve gas. The protocol was never going to stop the Saddam Husseins of this world, but at least it should have been a start.

" Sadly, a combination of pressure from the US and developing countries and a lack of interest from many other governments has made the final compromise weak. Some even argue that the protocol could make things easier for biowarriors by creating the illusion of safety. Maybe if the US rejects the protocol later this year, as predicted, it won't be so disastrous after all, but only if we redouble our efforts to find a better way to police the convention."

Finding a better way to craft and police conventions is a key technical problem. We have to do better than we're doing.

almarst-2001 - 01:48pm May 22, 2001 EST (#4148 of 4157)

rshowalter 5/22/01 7:15am

"If you look at the history of international negotiation, and talks, the idea of giving up on talking has some appeal."

That's not a message of the US institutions in regard to the internal conflicts at home. There the message is that force is never a solution and only by civil actions, dialog and compromise problems may be solved. That may not be the fastest way, but the only lasting one.

The only reason to avoid the talk is to avoid a compromise. And it seems the US is trying to position itself to substitute the talk with dictate.

The international talks failed not because the talks are useless. But because one of the sides wanted more then the agreed compromise and had a power (or believed it did) to do so.

The very importand point is: "It takes a very long time and effort to build the trust. And it takes no time to destroy it completely".

"The assumption that talk can't work -- that international cooperation can't work -- that unilateralism is basically the only hope for effective action - is central to much of the logic of the Bush administration's actions."

I don't think there is such a big of a diffrence between administrations. As I recall, Clinton established the no-fligh zones and intiated the daily bombing of Iraq, bombed Sudan pharmacuedical factory, bombed Afganistan, and eventually, Kosovo and Serbia without warrying too much of the consequences, compromises or unilateralism. Could Bush do even worst? May be so. But from my perspective, Clinton's team have done enough to destroy all trust and good will I certainly hoped for after the end of a cold war. The New World Order he promoted is not what I expected to be born.

rshowalter 5/22/01 7:17am

"You can understand their position. You can believe that much of what they say is sincerely believed and heartfelt, And yet you can still think that the results they will get will be horrific, inhuman, and evil."

I think I can. But even more so could I understand the logic and the actions of Nazis or Stalin. Much more so then US's. Those where dictators who came to rule the very weak and destroyed nations with an idea they have a power, ability and the mandate to change the fate and fix all the problems and injustices in just one generation, no matter the cost, during their life-time. The US politicans have no such pressure or mandate.

"If the effectiveness of talk and international cooperation in the future is no better than it is in the past -- then the world may be, speaking figuratively of course, headed straight to h*ll."

As long as the talk is to hide the real intentions. The main question is: "What are the real intentions?". And, if indeed peacefull and good: "What it would take to build a trust?".

Before that, anything which can cause even the perception of an attempt to achieve the unilateral advantage and break from MAD is just madly wrong step with absolutly unpredictable consequences. The MAD equilibrim prevented the major cathastrofic war since WWII. To take such a risk as to break it is just plainly irresponcible.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense