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 - 04:47pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5220 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'll write about instabilities tomorrow. Taking a rest for a little while.
MD5146 rshowalter 6/14/01 8:14pm

I stand by what I said in
MD4996 gisterme 6/13/01 1:58pm ... MD4997 rshowalter 6/13/01 2:03pm
MD4998 rshowalter 6/13/01 2:05pm ... MD4999 rshowalter 6/13/01 2:08pm

gisterme - 05:12pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5221 of 5245)

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/opinion/15FRI1.html

"The Bush administration ought to stop demonizing the ABM treaty and start building on it."

That's exactly what I expect to happen once all the arm-waving is over. Chances seem slim that the US would unilaterally abrogate the 1972 ABM treaty or even legally withdraw as allowed by the terms of that treay.

President Bush is spending political capital at a corageous rate, in my view, on some apparent ugliness, but ugliness that holds the promise of leading to a far greater beauty. How's that, Robert?

Nobody argues that Mr. Bush is a particularly eloquent speaker. But I think that those who claim he's just dumb may find out that's dumb like a fox.

The one thing we can know for sure is that time will tell.

gisterme - 05:56pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5222 of 5245)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 6/13/01 2:03pm ): If you admit that -- (and you know some technical facts) -- then you're admitting that the controls on our nuclear weapons are grossly defective.

I've made no such admission. You jump to a conclusion there Robert with no basis in fact.

That post was only responding to possumdag's conjecture. I think what she REALLY meant, if you check the context, is that a misfire of a BMD missile could cause the world to end; but she didn't really make that clear. So I substituted "misfired ICBM" to make a point about BMD. If strategic nuke controls were grossly defective catastrophic nuclear weapons accidents would be much more common than natural disasters.

Under the MAD paradigm the risk of keeping strategic nuclear weapons MUST be assumed to be less than the risk of NOT keeping them. To me that doesn't make much more sense than the overall MAD concept in this post cold-war/empire era, but there it is.

I'll continue to argue that the risk of a catistophic nuclear accident is very small, at least on the US side. Still, NO risk seems much better than SOME risk, however small. The only way to achieve NO risk is to get rid of all strategic nukes.

I don't think the US or anybody else that has strategic nukes will be ready to unilaterally trust another to completely disarm anytime soon. Then, of course, there's always the odd wacko to worry about; hence the BMD.

In a world that's trying to achieve strategic nuclear disarmament a BMD can be viewed in two ways. Viewed negatively, BMD is an insurance policy against cheating, accidents or thugs; veiwed positively, it's like training-wheels for trust.

gisterme - 06:10pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5223 of 5245)

rshowalter wrote: "...For example, a mathematical engineer has to talk to Russians and Americans differently -- or it used to be that way -- because the patterns of thought are really different.

For example, Americans are much more likely to talk of "degrees of freedom" -- Russians about "constraints."..."

That pretty well sums up the differences in the political climates of the US and USSR doesn't it Robert? We are products of our society. I suppose it would be quite natural for folks living in a repressive society to think in terms of "constraints" rather than "degrees of freedom". Do you suppose that's why you say "or used to be" when you speak of today's Russians?

One might conclude that even our scientific, creative minds are shaped to conformity with our political environemnts.

Do we have some "Yin and Yang" going on here, Robert? :-)

gisterme - 06:13pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5224 of 5245)

rshowalter wrote: "...And if you have to get compatible definitions -- both ways -- it can take some talking..."

Why compatible definitions, Robert? Why not the SAME definitions?

fritzi24 - 06:25pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5225 of 5245)

rshowalter:

How about giving it a rest for a while and allow some other viewpoints to get into this discussion. You've been subjecting this forum to two straight days of your self-important pontificating - eneough is enough.

lunarchick - 07:01pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5226 of 5245)
lunarchick@www.com

fritzi24 - anyone can post on discussion boards at any time .. had you put posts into the discussion they would BE.

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense