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?

lunarchick - 08:30am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6957 of 6977)
lunarchick@www.com

Wynne says the public become skeptical of scientists because they note over time that the scientists have paymasters and most often don't have the independence of stance they pretend to have.

On Nuclear Matters he noted the public making their own minds up - inspite of scientist expertism - in the Eighties.

This same phenomena may be happening with regard to Bwsh and the Shield.

rshowalter - 08:31am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6958 of 6977)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Almast , and he seems to speak for Russia here, does not believe that the "rogue states" are anything but a pretext for missile defense -- and one can see his point of view -- Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has expressed grave douts on this, doubt that others share: Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html

MD4988 almarst-2001 6/13/01 12:32pm starts that Russia must assume a missile shield will work eventually ... has much detail, and ends with this.

" I view it as a "shield" designed to "free the punching hands" of aggression and oppression. It will say "I can hit you at will. But you will not be able to return the punch. "

This concern about US agressiveness is real and central to the objections of the Russians, and to the objections of other nations as well, and it has been made very clear. If this concern was convincingly adresssed the other political strategic issues of missile defense would be of less political concern.

lunarchick - 08:36am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6959 of 6977)
lunarchick@www.com

Wynne's book

rshowalter - 08:36am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6960 of 6977)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

On making a case.

MD4989 rshowalter 6/13/01 12:39pm ... MD4990 almarst-2001 6/13/01 12:40pm
MD4991 rshowalter 6/13/01 12:43pm ... MD4992 rshowalter 6/13/01 12:47pm
contain this:

"If leaders of one or a few nation states wanted the case against missile defense in the current context made -- in a way where closure would be reasonably possible -- and openness would be persuasive -- well, it could be done. I've made suggestions along that line, and there are various ways it could be done. It would need more staffing, and more legitimacy, than this thread has. . . . The Bush administration wouldn't have to be involved to get a great deal done -- though it would, of course, be better if it was. . . . If Putin, George Soros (or Turner, or any of 20-50 other people) and 2 or more leaders of major nations wanted it done -- - - we could get to the truth, on some very essential issues. The money could be private. Some of the legitimacy would have to come from the public interest of respected nation states __ one of which, more and more, is Russia.

( almarst , ) " you're right that this is a strictly bipartisan mess. What happened is that a small group, dominated by Curtis Lemay, took effective control of an enormous amount of US nuclear policy late in the Eisenhower administration -- and has had it ever since.

"The thing to see, though, is that no matter how awful our nuclear tactics and cold war tactics have been -- the American people (not totally, but significantly) have been misled, too. And there has been a propaganda campaign, along lines very similar to those the Nazis perfected, going on a long time.

"If the American people really understood what happened, they would not approve . . . and they'd disapprove, especially, about what has been done since 1990 --- again, a bipartisan mess.

Personally, I'm not too concerned about missile defense as a destabilizing technical reality -- it doesn't work well enough for that -- and I don't think it can.

But I think many people, in a country where the military spends $1500/year for every man woman and child, without explaining clearly why, have to be concerned about a military-industrial complex out of control, and patterns, many extraconstitutional and unconstitutional. Patterns that are wasting both money and chances, generating and permitting carnage, and risking the very survival of the world.

Ideas matter here -- ideas that are not "somehow, too weak." There is much to build on -- and the technical foundation of the missile defense program could not stand the light of day.

Some key world leaders have been, and continue to be, concerned on issues of fact, and realism of models.

Bush Runs Into Skepticism at NATO Over Missile Shield by FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/13/world/13CND-PREXY.html?pagewanted=all

lunarchick - 08:44am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6961 of 6977)
lunarchick@www.com

Wynne

"To get controlled knowledge, scientists have to make assumptions and create artificial conditions where they hope to control all the variables," he said. "But the assumptions made can often be wrong because real world conditions are always more complex and variable."

Professor Wynne said scientific risk assessment could be "more realistically shaped" by wider input from lay people. "They often ask new questions that scientists haven't thought about - the commonsense everyday questions like, 'Does it work?'"

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense