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?

wrcooper - 05:05pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8717 of 8726)

rshowalter 9/9/01 4:34pm

Bob:

I oppose the NMD program as much as you do, but I think your allegation that what Rumsfeld et. al. propose is "irresponsible to the point of treason" suggests extremism. I don't think words like "treason" should be tossed around, even on chat forums like this. Treason is a serious crime; it involves betrayal of the state to its enemies, giving aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States; that sort of thing. Do you really believe that the people who support the NMD plan, many of whom are decorated serving officers and veterans, are guilty of treason for supporting this plan? I know how much you despise the plan, but it's going too far to call its supporters traitors. I think they're probably guilty of a number of vices, such as power-greed and avarice; they're probably guilty of short-sightedness and institutional myopia; I could think of a number of points where they're culpable. But I don't think they're traitors. Many of them may actually believe that the NMD plan is well-advised and indeed necessary for national defense. Not all of them can be involved from a self-serving and cynical position--although I suspect many of them are. But greed and power-hungriness aren't tantamount to treason. I think you should carefully consider your choice of words in this respect.

rshowalter - 05:22pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8718 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You make an interesting point. At the level of the practical effect of what is being done, I think the word fits. It is hard for me to imagine that the people involved cannot imagine the bad consequences of their mistakes enough to do reasonable checking.

In paradigm conflicts, problems like this occur. There are plenty of examples in the history of medicine, where a misunderstanding makes for decisions that result in wrenching amounts of death and injury. The case of Semmelweiss was a stunning example.

In retrospect (safely within a new paradigm) it is hard to see the medicos who turned away from Semmelweis' evidence (and there are plenty of like examples) as anything but murderous knaves.

And yet, another part of me knows that it was not that simple. Though the reality may have been every bit as ugly.

Let me go back to a number of definitions that Dawn collected, and look again at what the words mean. I may have used words badly (though, still now, I suspect I used them rightly). Give me some time to check - - I may owe some people an apology.

In a past passage, I adressed the Commondant of the Marine Corps, and expressed the opinion that what he said, in practical effect, might be as damaging as a betrayal would have been.

Later, for reasons no doubt quite unrelated to anything having to do with me, it came out that the Marine Corps investigated some matters that had concerned me in a very thorough, and so far as I can tell from this distance, praiseworthy manner.

I apologized.

Perhaps I'm on the wrong end of the paradigm dispute, and I am wrong, for reasons I've not been able to see. But from where I sit, based on my understandings of words . . "to the point of treason" seems, if not dead right, uncomfortably close.

Let me look back at those definitions. Perhaps I used a word I should not have done. Back, within an hour, with a clarification, or retraction-apology.

rshowalter - 05:33pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8719 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here are the definitions I'll be looking at.
MD7943 rshowalter 8/20/01 11:08pm

rshowalter - 05:46pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8720 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I am plainly in the wrong about my use of the word "treason" according to the most important of definitions, The Constitution of the United States says, in Article. 3. Section. 3. Clause 1 ///,

" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" . . . .

Rumsfeld and the Bush administration are not levying War against the United States.

I apologize for having used a word improperly and unfairly.

I'd like to be permitted to retract MDrshowalter 9/9/01 4:34pm . . . , and repost much of the substance of it, removing the offensive and incorrect "treason" , but perhaps discussing the point in terms that may fit better, namely

"Misrepresentation, Fraud"

"Bad Faith Military"

and/or

"Dereliction of duty:

I do believe that what is being done can be reasonably considered, on the basis of assumptions I am making and trying to be clear about, in terms of those phrases. But I'll be rereading the definitions now. (Some words, like "threat"-- with its 30-some definitions, are problematic even after one does read some or all of the definitions.)

rshowalter - 05:56pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8721 of 8726)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

While I reconsider, I would like to cite a book, written by an officer on active duty, which uses words carefully, and has an interesting title.

DERELICTION OF DUTY: LYNDON JOHNSON, ROBERT McNAMARA, THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, AND THE LIES THAT LED TO VIETNAM ..... by H. R. McMaster
HarperCollings, 1997

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense