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?

gisterme - 07:20pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4214 of 4218)

rshowalter wrote: ".... . . Russia can't be asked to agree to nuclear safety for the world, at the cost of sacrificing HER interests, from HER point of view...."

That statement makes no sense, Robert. How could "nuclear safety for the world" NOT be in Russia's interest? What planet do you think they're on? How is Russia's inerest served by keeping the world in a condition of nuclear un-safety?

Let's suppose that China unilatirally dismantled its entire nuclear arsenal except for battlefield tactical weapons. How would that change the balance of power in the world? Not at all. The old presumption of a foreign desire for invasion just doesn't hold up any longer. Who is going to invade China?

What if the US unilatirally dismantled all of its strategic nuclear weapons? That would definately upset the MAD balance; but would Russia attack? Would the Soviet Union somehow resurrect to re-occupy eastern Europe and launch a nuclear strike at the US? The idea that Russia might do that is ridiculous.

Likewise if Russia unilatirally took down their strategic nukes. No cause for alarm from the US or China, due to a complete lack of motive to do harm.

The greatest motiviation that either Russia or the US would have in the face of such a unilateral move by the other would not be to attack but to get rid of their own strategic weapons because the damned things are dangerous and very expensive to maintain.

As has been mentioned before here, strategic nuclear weapons are useless. MAD is nonsense in today's world because removal of nuclear weapons from one side or the other would not cause an attack. Any attack strong enough to destroy the US, China or Russia would also turn the rest of the world into a cesspool of nuclear contamination. Any attack not strong enough to finish the job completely would assure retribution in kind at some point. We might be an adapatble species but not THAT adaptable.

It is in nobody's interest to continue holding the nuclear hammer over each other. It's an unnecessary danger. If a BMD is a necessary tool to get us moving in the direction of strategic disarmament, any cost is cheap. If we can somehow get stategic disarmament without a BMD then the need for a BMD would pretty much be gone wouldn't it?

Of course if that happened then the MI complex folks would be making the same arguement gun owners use to defend their right to posess guns..."if they take away our ICBMs then only the criminals will have ICBMs." No doubt that would be the rallying-cry for "BMD anyway". :-)

If some potential enemy must have an arsenal, I would have all the weapons in his arsenal be defensive. So, by the golden rule, what I should do if I must also have an arsenal is make all my weapons defensive. Makes the whole concept of maintaining an arsenal sound kind of silly doesn't it?

MAD is just that.

gisterme - 08:10pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4215 of 4218)

rshowalter wrote: "...It seems to me that internet usages (perhaps with some crowd control, but in the open, and adequately staffed ) offer sensationally effective means of getting facts straight. And getting differences clear..."

Robert, that might be true for us but I wonder how many folks besides our regulars here actually read all this stuff. It doesn't matter much whether or not WE get the facts straight if nobody else cares. If there were many folks following along I think we'd get more posts from them.

What would be interesting is if REAL intenational negotiators had to make all their arguments on public forum like this (posting by invitation only, of course). This sort of format has some real advantages over face-to-face converstaion besides just eliminating distance:

1) Everybody gets to finish what they want to say, regardless of how emotional the moment may be. Nobody gets shouted down or intimidated by personalities.

2) Everybody gets a chance to be sure that what say is what they mean to say before they say it.

3) Everybody has a chance to consider what has been said and be sure they understand it before they respond.

4) Physical handicaps like poor speaking ability, stuttering or even muteness and deafness are completely filtered out.

5) Racial and gender distinctions are filtered out.

6) There is a permanent record of what has been said.

7) Everybody in the world can follow along without disrupting the proceedings.

rshowalter - 08:58pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4216 of 4218)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm very glad you're responding this way ! You say key things that are absolutely right -- MAD is crazy. We can do better than that.

To do that, we need people to understand, to be interested, and to get to a confidence level -- for both leaders and followers.

I think, using these kinds of techniques, a LOT of problems could be worked out that aren't sorted out now. (Some in math and science occur to me.)

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense