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 - 02:57pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6295 of 6301)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm still thinking about MD6237 gisterme 6/28/01 4:46pm .. and MD6248 rshowalter 6/28/01 7:43pm . .. and related matters.

It is taking some time. One thing we want is solutions that are just enough, and clear enough, that people can actually live with them. Nothing else is practical.

I'm out for at least an hour, working on these things.

gisterme - 03:33pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6296 of 6301)

rshowalter wrote: "...Not that we need another race -- but I do think that space is an area where US - Russian competition has had some positive aspects -- which continue..."

Robert,

What seems most positive to me is the cooperative process that is going on with the ISS. That's a great opportunity for all involved to LEARN TO GET ALONG in an environment of fiscal, cultural and tecnological interaction. It's a relatively small-scale program today that should lead to a model for large-scale cooperation in the future...while laying down foundations for confidence and trust among the parties involved. That may be turn out to be just as important as the very real and long-term benefit to the advancement of scientific knowledge that the ISS will enable.

The NASA space program and US military space programs had a VERY synergistic relationship that quickly overcame the Soviet lead in space technology (as a Cold War success); but in hindsight it seems even more important that that relationship also jump-started the current technological revolution that has lead to much of the fantastic technology you and I use every day and take for granted.

I think that the US Government decision NOT to make NASA a military program was probably the principal enabler of that "jump-start". NASA, almost since its inception, has had great programs intended to diffuse newly developed technology (including some military) into the civilian economy. That's one positive Cold War legacy we don't need to look back to see because it's still in operation today. The best part is that the WHOLE WORLD eventually gets to share the benefits of that diffusion. That's a sort of "hidden" way that spending on space and military R&D gives some return on the investment.

rshowalter - 04:23pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6297 of 6301)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The economic fruits of NASA have been greatly over-rated.

rshowalter - 04:26pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6298 of 6301)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD1224 rshowalter 3/21/01 10:18am

You need the past, too. Perhaps some among you remember the Rolling Stones song - a great old 45, with a hit on both sides.

Ruby Tuesday - the Rolling Stones

She would never say where she came from
Yesterday don't matter if it's gone
While the sun is bright
Or in the darkest night
No one knows
She comes and goes

{Refrain} Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday
Who could hang a name on you
When you change with every new day
Still I'm gonna miss you

Don't question why she needs to be so free
She'll tell you it's the only way to be
She just can't be chained
To a life where nothing's gained
And nothing's lost
But such a cost

{Refrain}

There's no time to lose, I heard her say
Catch your dreams before they slip away
Dying all the time
Lose your dreams
And you will lose your mind
And life unkind

{Refrain twice}

The Russians need a past, so that they can construct a workable future. So do we. And for all sorts of entirely practical reasons, and deep emotional reasons, it is important that our past be true in the ways we have to refer to it, for action. (complexity references here )

Russia's mental health and practical function depend on getting a workable, true past that they can understand, and build on. In a deep sense, so does our own.

Russia's sense of military security depends, and must depend - on being able to predict some basic things about American behavior -- and that, to some extent, means predicting the future on the basis of a known past, and known controls and changes.

This is true for imporant reasons, some very easy to understand
MD1127 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@184.eEtgaVsMqGs^3022437@.f0ce57b/1226 ... MD1128 rshowalter 3/17/01 5:31pm
MD1129 rshowalter 3/17/01 5:38pm .... MD1130 rshowalter 3/17/01 5:38pm

and some a little more technical -- but still clear.
MD1131 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:02pm .... MD1132 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:10pm
MD1133 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:13pm .... MD1134 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:17pm
MD1135 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:19pm .... MD1136 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:24pm

We are making crazy decisions, that may destroy the world, and that are very, very ugly, because we can't find the grace to be honest about some basic things that were done, and some things left undone.

Now, there's some progress, maybe. To make it solid, we have to know key things about the past.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense