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 - 04:24pm Jul 11, 2001 EST (#6932 of 6939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 7/11/01 3:52pm I don't think the administration's agenda is quite that focused -- or corrupt, in quite that way.

I think that the Bush administration -- which has inherited a mess that's built up over many years, and that has the constituency that it in fact has -- is trying to find workable ways to act. - I think many in the administration, including gisterme are worthy of sympathy and respect in some ways, but not in others.

Getting facts straight would greatly decrease the economic hardships on Russia. And there's been progress there. Russia's diplomacy -- and common ground with much of the rest of the world, is reducing that economic hardship already. Russia is less isolated, and economically less disadvantaged, than it was.

Some while ago, almarst , we talked about the idea of getting a group of people, mostly journalists, from a number of countries -- with invites wide -- including all political persuasions -- and try to do a "dry run peace conference" -- and negotiate a "dry run peace" -- first as a journalistic exercise -- to yeild journalistic output -- but also to iron out the problems that really have to be resolved. It may make sense to talk of that again.

We aren't so very far from a much more peaceful set of accomodations -- and the things that stand in the way are much less formidible than they looked, even a few months ago.

There are some illusions and, it seems to me (I could be wrong here) intentional deceptions -- and once past them -- a much better world might be possible -- to me, looks likely.

There are a lot of things that could be done to better address the physical needs of people in the world, and some of their emotional needs, as well.

rshowalter - 04:38pm Jul 11, 2001 EST (#6933 of 6939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Search "draft treaty proposal" -- with what's been accomplished now -- the proposal seems more viable than it did before. -- rereading.

rshowalter - 05:03pm Jul 11, 2001 EST (#6934 of 6939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD2616 rshowalter 5/1/01 5:59pm ... MD2617 rshowalter 5/1/01 6:05pm
MD2618 rshowalter 5/1/01 6:13pm

The proposal in more detail was set out, with some comment from our "Putin stand it" -- almarst , in the following postings, and elsewhere.

MD953: rshowalter 3/12/01 1:24pm MD956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm MD958: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:36pm MD960: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:47pm MD961: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:47pm MD962: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:51pm MD963: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:55pm

I have two things in mind.

Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament, and the military balances that peace would take, set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

Missile Defense would have to be discussed rather completely for this -- but as it needs to exist -- in context.

I wonder how much might be done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense