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 - 02:58pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5668 of 5676)

dirac, mazza,

May I jump on the bandwagon too? Mazza, here's a previous post about that 20-20 hindsight WRT Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and Robert's response...

gisterme 6/4/01 6:58pm

"rshowalter wrote (WRT Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings): "...But it is CLEAR that you can't deal with this situation in terms of simple right and wrong -- simple justice -- the situation is just too complicated for that..."

Robert, put yourself in president Truman's place and tell me what decision you would have made in 1945. Remember that virtually the entire American public demands the utter defeat of Japan as promised by you yourself and your beloved predecessor. The options are:

1) Invade Japan and fight on for a couple of more years, lose a half-million of your own people, kill a couple of million japanese soldiers and civilians and destroy most of what's still standing in Japan.

2) Blockade Japan and suffer attrition due to kamakazie attacks for how ever many years it took to bomb and starve them into submission, probably causing millions of Japanese civilian deaths. Destroy most of what's still standing in Japan.

3) Use the "atom bomb", devistate some (more) Japanese cities to force a quick Japanese surrender with no further losses to your own people.

4) Just quit and call the boys home.

5) Surrender to Japan.

Which would you choose? Did I miss an option? Where are the complications you were talking about?

It may not be simple right and wrong, Robert; there's definately something wrong if a war is going on. But if there must be a sacrifice of lives due to a choice in war, the sacrefice of a few seems more right than the sacrefice of many when there's a choice. What am I oversimplifying here, Robert?"

The subsequent post, MD4497 was Robert's response, which includes in part:

"...If, after checking, the options you set out above were the real options -- then dropping the bomb would have made sense."

...wrapped in a bunch of other qualifying double-talk.

The fact is that the Japanese repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to fight to the last man in the Pacific battles. Whatever one may think of Japanese poitical leadership at the time, that "fight to the death" attitude has to be respected. If they would fight that hard for isolated islands, how much harder would they have fought if their home islands were invaded? I believe that was Mr. Truman's view and the reason he made the decision he did. Terrible as those bomgings were, they saved lives on both sides in the long run.

dirac_10 - 03:10pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5669 of 5676)

gisterme - 02:58pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5668 of 5668)

As for the monday morning quarterbacking, perhaps I could add that it is clear now that Japan couldn't come up with some new weapon like the bomb. But it was less clear then. They were up to their necks in biological stuff, for instance. In fact, some claim that Japan's bomb project was further along than Germany's. Probably true. They were well aware of the possibility.

To just put it off indefinitely, from the viewpoint of the time, might have given them a final chance of success.

gisterme - 03:20pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5670 of 5676)

lunarchick wrote: "...Mt 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

- an ancient concept..."

That's true, lunarchick. I'd call significant reduction or elimination of ICBMs a definate step in that "put away the sword" direction, wouldn't you, lunarchick? If building a BMD can cause negotiations that lead to such a stand down, then we're following the excellent advice you quoted. Also note, that Jesus didn't say anything about putting away the shield. With a missile shield we and others get some protection against madman swordsmen. A BMD looks like a way to accomplish two tasks with one effort. That's got to be more efficient than most government efforts.

Nice to see you coming around... :-)

gisterme - 03:25pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5671 of 5676)

dirac wrote (WRT the closing of the Pacific war dirac_10 6/21/01 3:10pm ): "...To just put it off indefinitely, from the viewpoint of the time, might have given them a final chance of success..."

That's a great point dirac. Hadn't thought of that.

gisterme - 03:52pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5672 of 5676)

midmoon (midmoon 6/21/01 9:46am) ,

Robert couldn't be talking about Marxism or Lennonism or Stalinism or even Maoism. Though that list shows an interesting progression of brutality as subsequent attempts were made to FORCE communism to work; none of those worked worth a damn. I think Robert's talking about Showalterism. :-) Hmmm. I don't know, but I've been told, a turd by any other name is still a turd. --Thanks for the concept Mr. Shakespeare...

rshowalter - 04:08pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5673 of 5676)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

keep going, guys . . .

lunarchick - 05:17pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5674 of 5676)
lunarchick@www.com

George Johnson. Been busy. Who'd believe a thing re the credentials your moniker-fiction characters proclaim - :) :)

senario: No one seemed to pick-up on the possibility of Putin & Bwsh Bwddying-uP to each other and handshaking as they literally build a brige over the Bering Straits! Run rail - hover rail for white winter - over it, with a branch line down to North Korea, for Goods and Tourism. USA-Russia forming an alliance of international understanding. Huge cast iron statues of Bwsh could be trucked over to decorate the boulevards oof Siberian cities -- forget Mount Rushmore.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense