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 - 03:02pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8244 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Dialog between India and Australia is a good thing, too.

" India and Australia are among the few countries sympathetic to President Bush's planned missile defense system which sparked major concerns in Russia, Europe and China."

India and Australia need to have reasons for what they're doing, and an understanding of their roles and opportunities. Based on clear ideas and facts.

India and Australia Start Security Dialogue by REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-india-australia.html

rshowalter - 03:03pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8245 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I believe that there are real chances for real peace, including nuclear disarmament, and that the world may be tending in that direction.

MD8068 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:42pm ... MD8069 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:43pm

rshowalter - 03:05pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8246 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Science - Missile Defense thread is extensive, and somewhat specialized.

A summary of it, with many links, is set out in the following links. The summary says something about what's been done here, and what there might be to hope for, using some of the kinds of interaction that have happened on this thread.

MD8062 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:34pm ... MD8063 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:35pm
MD8064 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:36pm ... MD8065 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:36pm
MD8067 rshowalter 8/23/01 5:41pm ...

rshowalter - 03:05pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8247 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Struggling to justify expenditure levels and roles no longer justified. $1500 american, year after year, is a lot for America to spend on its military function.

MD8070 rshowalter 8/23/01 6:45pm . . MD#8071 rshowalter 8/23/01 8:49pm
MD8072 lunarchick 8/23/01 9:03pm ... MD8073 rshowalter 8/23/01 9:18pm

Some things need to be made clear - - at the levels it actually takes, for the people actually involved.

rshowalter - 03:06pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8248 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD8075 lunarchick 8/23/01 9:57pm .... MD8076 rshowalter 8/23/01 10:13pm

"Can negotiated peace be done once - done right?"

At the level of exemplars, on the primal things involving nuclear weapons and controls, that will preserve the world -- I think the answer is yes.

But only if, when the stakes are high enough, finding the empirical truth, on key questions of fact , is morally forcing.

That puts pressures on journalism , world wide, that need to be adressed.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to find ways to keep the world from being reduced to a charred ball, containing no life, but only rotting unburied corpses.

That ought not to be beyond us.

The risks of world destruction, are very real.

rshowalter - 03:10pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8249 of 8253)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But human ingenuity is real, too. We need to find ways where we avoid compromises, when the real solution is to find arrangements that meet the real and reasonable needs of all concerned, without compromising needs that should not be compromised.

We need arrangements where both the US, and Russia, and other countries involved, too, are more secure , more emotionally comfortable , and richer after reframing relationships, and after readjustments, than they are now.

I believe that, if we avoid deceptions, and work with the world as it is, without illusions, we can take the world's military risks, including nuclear risks, way down. And have a reasonable chance, in the not too distant future, of eliminating nuclear weapons.

And can go on living, along the continuum of trust and distrust that is the natural state between people and nations. With deterrances in place where they are needed, as well as incentives. More safely than now.

A little bit of an "arms race" may be in order, in spots, to see that agressive weapons, that are not now obsolete, but ought to be, become so.

But the main thing needed for stability, from where we are, is more openness , and more ability to check facts so that those facts, and their consequences, cannot be evaded.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense