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 - 06:55pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4670 of 4673)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4513 almarst-2001 6/5/01 11:01am

' 'If we assume that the ABM Treaty loses force, it's logical to assume that the subsequent treaties that were based on it will also lose force,'' ... Sergei Ivanov

"Trust" is essential, if workably defined, but the word can be used in treacherous ways. MD4514 rshowalter 6/5/01 12:44pm

MD4515rshowalter 6/5/01 1:26pm: It is worth noting that here, as in other places, great weight has been placed on meaning of a word where that meaning is ambiguous -- and can imply just the opposite of what the hearer may reasonably expect.

MD4516 rshowalter 6/5/01 1:31pm

Negotiations are reasonable between nations states, so long as "trust us" means

" You can trust us" -- because we're being straightforward and open, and you can check us.

One can never check everything - what is "blind faith" depends on what experience has been, and what prior knowledge shows.

But this is clear --i "trust" in the sense of "blind faith" is not reasonable, nor decent to ask for, between nation states, when the vital, fearful issues of military balance, and especially nuclear weapons, are involved.

rshowalter - 07:13pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4671 of 4673)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Smiles and evasions don't cut it when stakes are so high. Especially on issues where smiles seem so forced, given circumstances where deception and avoidance of fundamentals have been so essential for so long. The following references offer backgroud reasons why "blind trust" is such an unacceptable idea in these matters.

Nuclear weapons may easily end the world. These weapons are built to reduce huge numbers of people, too many for a person to count, to rotting unburied corpses No doubt this is a reason to want missile defenses, considered in isolation. But it is also a reason to be careful about everything - in the full context where responsible nation states must act.

ARMED TO EXCESS ... NYT , OpEd, March 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/opinion/02KERR.html shows that even the most essential facts about our nuclear deployments have been denied members of the House and Senate. US nuclear policy has been controlled, to a decisive extent, for decades - by a largely non-accountable group of people.

And the history involved is ugly - - in terms of what the US has done, and what it has condoned, and permitted. THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html

The NAZI influence on US policy cannot now be reasonably doubted. And its connection to nuclear policy seems clear. CIA's Worst-Kept Secret by Martin A. Lee May 16, 2001 http://www.consortiumnews.com/051601a.html

Morover, when one searches the connection between the Bush family, and the Nazis, going back to before WWII, and involving a government investigation and, quite likely, the transplanting of a prominant family from Connecticut to Texas, and views this in terms of the fact that George Bush Sr. was nominated and confirmed as director of the CIA - - there is reason for representatives of other nation states to ask for verifiable assurance about US actions and capabilities, and not to rely on "blind faith."

possumdag - 07:23pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4672 of 4673)
Possumdag@excite.com

Anything on the 'talks' about to happen in Europe .. wonder if the subject of discussion will be little league base ball :)

rshowalter - 07:33pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4673 of 4673)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It may be an absolutely ideal sequence -- in which the US makes promises to get at the truth on basic questions, and find ways to accomodate its own interests, and the interests of others, in necessary detail. In the interests of peace. In ways that can stand the light of day.

If so, that will be wonderful.

If, instead, it is

" "see what nice guys we are -- aren't you glad? -- Since there's no way you can stop us from doing anything we want, or evading any question you have, or, in effect, telling any lie we want -- so smile..."

then the meeting may be productive, too -- by showing the world what it has to deal with.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense