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 - 11:16am Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8047 of 8051)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm hoping, finally, to be involved in a little drama where a very few "islands of fact" about missile defense are checked , because the consequences of wrong answers, on the points, should be ugly to almost everyone who is reasonably honest and responsible.

Let me take some time to do some summarizing -- not artfully -- but about points that I think matter - for having the end of the Cold War a comedy, rather than a tragedy.

There are some SERIOUS tragedies, some involving great human cost and tragedy, that concern the notion of "paradigm conflict" -- and there is a serous lesson in the "little dramas" that paradigm conflict involves -- it is that key facts matter, and must be checked, especially when powerful emotional forces resist that checking.
MD7635 rshowalter 7/31/01 7:48am ... MD7636 lunarchick 7/31/01 8:22am

An institutional response, for scientific checking, which reflects a need for safeguards is suggested in
rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:43am ... rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:45am
rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:46am

Issues about facts, related to the credibility of the TIMES, are discussed in
rshowalt "Science in the News" 11/1/00 7:00am ... rshowalt "Science in the News" 11/1/00 9:50am
rshowalt "Science in the News" 11/1/00 9:55am

rshowalter - 02:55pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8048 of 8051)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some interesting MD news today.

U.S., China Discuss Missiles By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-China-US.html

U.S., China Begin Missile Talks in Beijing By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-china-usa.html

U.S. Envoy Says Russia Has Time in Missile Talks by MICHAEL WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/23/international/europe/23MISS.html

I've wondered about the "reality sense" of the Americans from time to time.

But I also wonder about the "reality sense" of the Russians.

And sometimes about unworkable assumptions both sides may be making. Particularly with fixations on "deterrance" as nuclear deterrance, when other kinds of deterrance would make much more sense, and are now very available.

Also, I'm worried about a very bad, dangerous, self defeating characteristic of Russians as a nation -- a basic fact that has reduced their military effectiveness for many years, and that gets them in trouble in negotiations, too. When threatened, Russians are very likely to bristle - become rigid, and become determined to fight. Other people do this, too, but the Russians a good deal more than most.

That is a problem negotiating with Americans, who bluff and threaten in more diverse ways, and with more virtuosity, than Russians commonly do.

In military history, and in some negotiations, too, Russians attack reflexively, quickly, but in disarray, and get clobbered too often.

It would be unfortunate if Russians are tempted to act that way here -- there is both too much to fear, and too much to hope, for such intellectually indisciplined and course tactics.

rshowalter - 02:58pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8049 of 8051)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Russia and the United States are different nation states, with different interests and cultures. They are, inevitably, potential enemies -- military forces on both sides have to think about it that way, to do their job.

Russia, as a competent nation state, has to have competent, sufficient ways to keep the United States from doing things against its interest - and the threat of force, and inflicting injury, can't ever be eliminated from the sphere of possibilities. Not now. Not ever.

As of now, and far into the forseeable future, Russia ought to have amply sufficient ways to deter the United States -- and if she does not, she needs them. But workable deterrance can't reasonably be nuclear. Under what circumstances, exactly, can Russia use nuclear weapons as a usable, flexible instrument of national policy? None. Under what circumstances can the Americans do so? None.

Facing nations more flexible than Russia, US nuclear threat behavior would not have been possible. That doesn't make the past right. But Russia should act more in her own interests in the future.

Can the Russians reasonably understand, and identify with, the real needs and motivations of the Americans? In context?

Can the Americans understand what the Russian needs are?

Whatever the other problems, and there are plenty of them -- both sides should want to reduce the reasons for fear of nuclear destruction.

The world could blow up, as of now. That ought to be fixed.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense