[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7235 previous messages)

rshowalter - 02:01pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7236 of 7257) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

descripto 7/19/01 1:22pm said that "This forum is NOT about the Osprey issue." --- and of course it isn't.

The Osprey matter, in the cites I gave it, does illustrate how the command organizations of the military, and their contractors, can make mistakes, and have those mistakes go on uncorrected for a long time. It also illustrates, I believe, how people in organizations like Carlyle can have extraordinary opportunities and temptations.

discripto's right that the military industrial complex has gone on a long time -- far longer than the Bush administration - - indeed, it was well established when Eisenhower used it so effectively as a leader WWII . I've quoted Eisenhower's Farewell Address from time to time to make the point.

Bush didn't make the mess. But he's embracing the problem, when he should be fixing it.

On the issue of repetition -- as minds get made up -- often there's a great deal of discourse - big word counts -- a lot of matching - - and a chance to examine contradictions. Also a chance to see what ideas get attacked, and can stand attack, and what ideas cannot.

And in the end, when things work well, simple ideas come into focus, and become accepted. I've been trying to do some of that here. With some personal inadequacies and insecurities, but proceeding as best I've known how. And no doubt being less effective than I could be.

Here are simple things that I believe:

. Missile defense, which might be very desirable if it were practical to do, is grossly impractical. We need to find other ways to make peace, that can work. And we need to redeploy the financial and human resources the US has now overcommitted to military function where they can do less harm and more good.

11728 - 02:52pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7237 of 7257)

Condoleezza, who's major experience is at the academy, says we shoudn't be restrained from pursuing a missile defense shield by any legally binding treaty such as the 1972 ABM accord.

Like a true neophyte, she asserts that military treaties are a relic of the "cold war." She would like to apply laissez faire principles to relations between governments.

Anything goes with the Bush administration. Whoop de do!

descripto - 03:00pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7238 of 7257)

11728 - 02:52pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7237 of 7237)

""Condoleezza, who's major experience is at the academy,""

  • Uhhh No...Her major experience is Soviet relations. Her ideological views come from Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. She described herself as a "firm believer in the principles of Morgenthau" "I read early on and was influenced by [Hans] Morgenthau” It is her ideological views regarding the system for which we live that makes Rice view the world the way she does. She comes from the OTHER camp. I am against NMD, but what you said of Rice is just clearly wrong and demonstrates that YOU not her may lack the understanding of the issues at hand. Sorry.

    rshowalter - 03:15pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7239 of 7257) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    Rice got to be Provost at Stanford University . There is probably no evil of which human beings are capable that she has not thought of -- no negotiation subtlety that she has not encountered, or heard of.

    No neophyte.

    We aren't dealing with fools here, but with an issue of paradigm conflict , where it matters what ideas are right -- and it can take checking to find out.

    rshowalter - 03:22pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7240 of 7257) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    I think it is fair to say that there are different points of view , and even paradigm conflicts , around missile defense. And they get in the way of hope, and safety, and progress. Some of them aren't simple, and they aren't entirely logical.

    It seems to me that some of them connect to an eloquent and profound OpEd piece by Zell Miller, Senator from Georgia The Democratic Party's Southern Problem There are ideas and feelings in conflict, for a lot of reasons.
    MD4493-5 rshowalter 6/4/01 3:02pm

    When there are conflicts in point of view, conflicts about ideas, that get so extreme that they can be called paradigm conflicts dangerous things can happen, and progress can break down.

    It seems to me that we need to get to better and more peaceful solutions than we have now, to avoid danger and ugliness, and to make the future better, and that finding ways past paradigm conflict is an important part of that, because the "show stoppers" so often happen when paradigm conflicts stop people from getting right answers. Dawn Riley have done a lot of work on paradigm conflict, and I organized some citations to that work in MD6012-3 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:04pm . . . almarst liked these references. #307 of Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? is the main one. It talks about the need for checking, and the need for umpires. Other references are cited -- perhaps, to some tastes, too many words, but on a subject that Dawn Riley and I have worked hard about.

    The need for third parties -- for different views -- is an essential human need - - something being discussed at the G-8 meeting now.

    More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (17 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
     Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company