New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(7510 previous messages)
- 06:36pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7511
3/5/01 6:53am ... MD839 rshowalter
We have to understand a new, basic thing.
We all understand that the development of nuclear weapons changed
. Nuclear weapons radically and permanently
changed "the worst that could happen" in war. --
That nightmare will, at some levels, remain with us, no matter how
well our technical and political controls work. In this sense, the
world was permanently changed in 1945, and the fifteen years
But nuclear weapons did not STOP history.
Another change has come upon us, also historical. It will also
be irreversible, permanent so long as civilization continues.
. The internet and related electonic changes,
and the changes that will follow from them, have radically
and permanently increased the speed of information flow,
permanently increased the amount of information available,
permanently increased the speed and power with which the
information can be used, and permanently, radically reduced the
cost of both information and logical inference.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
The connections between information (and deception) and war,
that have existed since time immemorial, are now permanently
THE ALTERATION IS IN THE DIRECTION OF STABILITY AND SAFETY -
OR CAN BE MADE TO BE .
BUT THIS IS A BIG NEW CHANGE, THAT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I believe that the world is going to be considerably safer and
more stable soon.
But militarily, it is also going to be different.
Military forces will still have plenty to do.
- 06:40pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7512
almarst took an interest, but also took a very different view
-- a view clearly connected to the American-Russian arms discussions
now going on.
He expressed interest in how the internet, and information flows,
could change military affiars, but concentrated on other points:
" As far as I see it, the situation is much
simpler. After the end of a Cold War, US spends 300 b/year on the
greatest military machine this world ever seen. It supports NATO
expansion eastwards trying to isolate Russia from Europe. It bombs
small and weak "unfriendly" countries at will for "misdeeds" it
and its "frends" frequently commit themself. And now it tryes to
establish its absolute superiority against Russia and China who
can't match such military buildup even close. On the way, US wants
to ensure its huge conventional force equiped with "smart"
weaponry and spread all over the glob feel free to act without
fear of even suicidal retaliation from a country having an
ultimate "poison pill" of just a few ballistic missels. US wants
to be able to kill and destroy without any possible retaliation -
from the safety of high above and far away - just like it
demonstrated in Yugoslavia and continue doing for 10 years in
" If you think I am the only one seeing this
picture you must be pretty naive. Just as US wants its freedom and
protection, so do the rest of the world. and they will try to come
up with solutions that fit their budget. Those solutions may end
up being very crual, not so "smart" and dangerous to all. But that
what US will get if it keeps on its current way.
I repeated again reasons why the internet made the US and other
countries vulnerable -- so that all ought to be deterred.
3/9/01 12:23pm . . . MD887 rshowalter
3/9/01 12:41pm . . . MD891 rshowalter
- 06:41pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7513
Then almarst expressed the concern, MD892 almarstel2001
3/9/01 12:48pm quoted above in rshowalter
7/27/01 5:28pm .
I think that almarst and Putin might think about
these vulnerabilities again -- they do provide
vulnerabilities that would have deterred Hitler, and ought to be
significant deterrants for the United States, as well.
That's hopeful, and stabilizing.
These non-nuclear vulnerabilities are real, and lend themselves
to proportionate, and even nonlethal, responses.
The usefulness of nuclear weapons is less than Putin thinks -
because they are so disproportionate, such overkill, that they can't
be used in the face of challenges Russia is likely to face.
It seems to me that Russias should be able to consider these
matters with an easier mind, when they consider how little the US
missile defense program actually amounts to, in terms of what it can
physically do. There are real alternatives and opportunities
available, despite real concerns, and real annoyances.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science