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 - 04:07pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6014 of 6023)

No need for me to read my own posts, Robert. I know what I've said. You should re-read YOUR posts. :-) Fat chance of that, eh Robert?

rshowalter - 04:08pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6015 of 6023)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

On morally forcing. I can swim. It seems to me that if I'm passing by a drowning kid, who I can easily save, I'm morally forced to do it.

Others, seeing me do it, might admire me for doing my duty.

But if they knew I walked by -- and let the kid drown -- they'd blame me. And I'd blame myself.

I'm using "morally forcing" in that sense. But another, too. When people believe that something is an obligation -- there are ways to see that the thing gets done, in all societies. For example, I proposed one for checking "paradigm conflicts" in science -- it happened to involve the US patent office -- but it was a clear procedure for credible checking, by a process that could itself be checked. Let me get the reference.

rshowalter - 04:09pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6016 of 6023)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , it seems to me that others should read your posts.

rshowalter - 04:19pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6017 of 6023)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here's some references from this thread (which staffs could follow up, and judge reasonable or unreasonable, in a focusing process) about checking, and checking that I think should be morally forcing.

MD1054 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:05pm ... MD1055 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:10pm
MD1056 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:10pm ... MD1057 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:17pm
MD1058 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:45pm ... MD1059 rshowalter 3/15/01 7:52pm

It includes this:

"There may be different ways of getting the checking done. Some suggestions have been discussed in the thread. If the moral point is granted, many different approaches to the checking could work well. Here is one, set out for scientific problems New York Times Science in the News thread rshowalt (# 381-383) rshowalt "Science in the News" SN381 rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:43am ... SN382 rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:45am
SN383 rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:46am

I wasn't suggesting any draconian enforcement powers.

" The result I'd suggest would be a clear written decision, on the merits of the issue, by the PTO. The decision need not be binding on anyone at all. But it would carry weight. Not all the weight in the world, but enough weight that it would go a long way toward resolving the impasse.

Similar patterns, variously modified, would be more than sufficient to determine the questions of fact that must be resolved in order for our nuclear impasse to be resolved.

sepiii - 04:21pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6018 of 6023)

NMD is a scam. A scam perpetrated upon the American people by our own money grubbing politicians and generals. To secure their own paychecks, they are trying to frighten us by telling us that we may be nuked any day now by some, as yet unknown, wacko nation.

This is pure sabre rattling targetted at us, not the supposed "enemy", whoever they are. If such a nuclear-capable rogue enemy exists, which is debatable, the threat of being completely destoyed by a US retaliation is enough (would be for me). It has always been enough.

If you had one nuclear missile, and you knew you could hit New York with it, would you? Would you risk being blown to nuclear hell and becoming the greatest world parriah since Hitler?

If you wanted to destroy a single American city, it can be done, without a missile track to follow and without a clear perpetrator to attack. And even if NMD were available, operational and 100% effective you still couldn't stop it. Imagine a Texas City-type event, but imagine it happening in the middle of the East River. (If you don't know about the explosion at Texas City, look it up.) This would seem to me to be a more probable event by a large factor, since the ships required enter US harbors daily.

As far as nuclear stategy goes, our current doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) has worked against the largest of nuclear powers for 50 years. And it is especially effective against the smaller ones. And it doesn't cost one dime more.

Anyone who tells you we MUST have NMD has a vested interest in the money appropriated for it. It would be nice, of course, to say to the world "You can't touch us", but that is just a pipe dream. Everyone knows we're at least 20 years from being able to do that. So this current discussion is simply a smokescreen so that we don't see the money flowing from government coffers into their Armani pockets.

Typical.

gisterme - 04:22pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6019 of 6023)

rshowalter wrote: "gisterme , it seems to me that others should read your posts."

Whatever I've posted is there for all to read. A relatively small portion of that is acually about missile defense, I confess. Most is (perhaps foolishly) responding to some of the outrageous stuff you've posted, Robert. If I wasn't sure that plenty of folks would appreciate some tiny islands of sanity amidst this river of Showaterism, I wouldn't bother.

So why not just stick to missile defence here on the MISSILE DEFENSE forum? I'm game for that.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense