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 - 01:09pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5364 of 5383)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Quinn shows how this "logical incrementalism" is important in practical administration.

The need for repetition, for multiple views, for multiple pieces of evidence, is a central reason why people in interaction exchange such a huge number of words, and is also an essential reason why, regardless of eloquence or logical correctness, there may have to be STAFF WORK to generate enough information to build a case that satisfies and persuades PEOPLE so that they can actually ACT.

The internet can serve the needs of staffs. This thread is intended set out relations that permit communication, and focusing, between staffed organizations, on problems where things are complex, and need focusing.

MD1520 rshowalter 3/26/01 7:36am ... MD1521 rshowalter 3/26/01 7:39am
MD1522 rshowalter 3/26/01 7:42am ....

MD1769 rshowalter 3/30/01 11:04am
MD1771 rshowalter 3/30/01 11:15am

Using the internet, human memory and the ability to handle complexity are extended. Checking is much easier than it used to be.

And the internet can be used to connect staffed organizations, which can do things, and check things, that individuals can't.

These new capacities can serve the needs of peace, and make war and injustice less likely.

rshowalter - 01:11pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5365 of 5383)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst has a good case. Automatic deference to the US as "the good guys" is getting harder and harder to sell outside the US -- yesterday's BBC call in show, and the postings that go with it, show that pretty well.

rshowalter - 01:38pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5366 of 5383)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD5353 rshowalter 6/18/01 11:28am

A Promising Start With Russia http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/opinion/18MON1.html

gisterme - 01:38pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5367 of 5383)

rshowalter wrote: "...The Closed Mind by ANTHONY LEWIS..." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/16/opinion/16LEWI.html seems very important to me, and useful.

That seems important to me too, Robert. In my opinion the title and byline pretty well describe the autor's mind, all right. The article itself is mindless drivel. To me, that's a perfect example of last-century thinking, apparently driven by a laughably narrow political view, trying to somehow reverse events that have already overcome the author's capacity to comprehend what's really happening.

"...while the idiots on the platform were driveling, the people kept calling for Lincoln..."— Winston Churchill

rshowalter - 02:10pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5368 of 5383)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

quite a few instances of name-calling in a single posting. What I said, when I quoted Lewis, is that he put together a coherent case that seemed to me to be one coherent wrap on events.

Your posting, in my view, tends to reinforce Lewis. But some other things that have happened since Lewis wrote the piece may tend the other way.

On balance, I'm hopeful. Not trustful, but hopeful.

gisterme - 02:13pm Jun 18, 2001 EST (#5369 of 5383)

midmoon wrote: "...Why do you all cling to just one nation,Russia?!"

That's a fair point midmoon. I think that's because we haven't had much "pseudo- representation" of a Chinese point of view on this thread.

We've all assumed that the US and Russia have by far the most chips on the table when it comes to strategic nuclear weapons. China only stands to gain relative power by a stand-down of significant numbers of strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia without having to increase their strategic arsenal at all.

It may be true that a jointly developed BMD (that excludes the Chinese) might be able to shield against a Chinese attack considering the numbers of ICBMs they presently have. However, optimist that I am, I've just assumed that the Chinese intentions are not toward conquest in the military sense but rather in the economic sense...as should the right of any free market participant that's willing to play by the rules of the marketplace.

I've postulated that if the US and Russia DID reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to the point that they are roughly on par with the Chinese, that the Chinese would also be interested in participating in a joint BMD program that could protect them too. Further rationale supposes that if all the holders of roughly equal strategic arsenals were behind an effective shield, a shield that could provide some real protection against an attack in that "small arsenal" environment, all sides might be willing to sincerely negotiatiate to get rid of the rest of their strategic nukes and trust their shield to protect against cheating or crazy men. After all, strategic nuclear weapons are dangerous and expensive to maintain.

Those might not be realistic assumptions and postulations. Time will tell.

It would be nice if there were some sincere and open minded presentation of the Chinese point of view here on this thread so that we could get some real feedback rather than just having to rationalize or guess.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense