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 - 09:01pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4217 of 4218)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , what you say may have obsoleted these old notes of mine, but I'll post them anyway:

terror is a problem md2914: jasontyer 5/1/01 5:44pm .... md2915: rshowalter 5/1/01 5:56pm

a "dry run" on disarmament talks:
md2916: rshowalter 5/1/01 5:59pm .... md2917: rshowalter 5/1/01 6:05pm

in more detail:
md2918:rshowalter 5/1/01 6:13pm .... md2919:rshowalter 5/1/01 6:18pm

The idea would be to involve journalists (to fill any slot that needed filling, along with any real negotiator who cared to be involved) partly because journalists can get to focus well, partly because the journalists are experts in getting past the "nobody cares" problem.

Also think that the journalists might get some very fine journalistic output from it. Sunday magazine specials, TV specials, and such. A lot of "big names" might be available for writing articles, if the discourse got organized.

I feel - and this is just a personal guess -- that once people got a real whiff of hope a LOT of people would be interested.

A "dry run" might have some advantages, in that somewhat lower ranking people might sweat through some of the focusing, where the top people just wouldn't have all the time.

Speaking objectively you're right about a great deal -- nukes make no sense, and we should just get on with taking them down (and doing the best we reasonably can defensively too, and in terms of prohibition, too). It shouldn't be necessary to mess with "dry runs." But in this area, emotions matter and confidence levels matter.

They matter a lot.

You need to capture not only minds, but hearts.

Journalists, and literary artists, I believe, could be good for that. Maybe some clergymen, too of all kinds here too. Including, perhaps, some Iranians who, in this area at least, have said some sensible things.

Also think that, in the end, when significant numbers of nukes come down -- there should be some ceremony to it. People should remember.

When nukes come down, they should stay down.

rshowalter - 09:15pm May 25, 2001 EST (#4218 of 4218)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme asked:

" 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? "

I happen to agree, gisterme , I think Russia has some incorrect (but not, from where they sit, irrational) fears.

They feel the way they feel. If almarst is any indication, Russians are rational, perceptive folks.

Working together, we should be able to get a mutual confidence level that lets us take nukes down (and cleans up our complex cooperations in other ways -- to the advantage of both countries.)

But, right or wrong, on matters of life and death, people need to feel confident about what they do. And given Russian history, including recent history, it makes sense to try to look at things from their point of view, and see if we can sort things out. I think we can. And once we do, the world would not only be a safer place, but a richer and more beautiful one as well.

"Impossible" problems, such as energy and global warming, ought to be quite possible to work out in ways with MANY "win-win" aspects. For that, there are some places where the Russians need to be educated. And we need some education, too.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense