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 - 03:19pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8839 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If we understood more clearly why we were hated, isn't it concievable that we might find ways to be less hated? Even ways that weren't expensive? Even ways that were to our own advantage?

The terrorist crime and tragedy of yesterday grew out of some wrenchingly ugly messes. It might be concievable that, with better understanding, those messes might be better handled.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that punishument, fighting, and killing might be a part of the best solution available.

But if so, it would have to be a part of some other arrangements that made sense - - so that after winning a battle or two -- people could go on in workable, reasonable ways.

Most of the messes involve lies. I think lies have had a big role in impoverishing the Arab world, and rest of the underdeveloped world, as well.

But Russians, Americans, and others have some problems with lies, as well.

rshowalter - 03:20pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8840 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And for all concerned, lies and mistakes about facts are expensive and dangerous when decisions based on "facts" have to be made.

rshowalter - 03:21pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8841 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

These folks may be "irrational" -- but they seem plenty effective in some technical ways. The Nazis were, too.

rshowalter - 03:39pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8842 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 9/12/01 3:16pm asks:

"After witnessing the events of yesterday, do you doubt that they would use such a missile?"

I don't take it as a forgone conclusion, and don't think anybody else should, either.

Maybe they would. But that depends on a lot of thing you don't know.

rshowalter - 03:41pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8843 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Their killings yesterday were aimed, and by some standards, well aimed, not indiscriminant.

I though what they did was terrible . . . but it was done by human beings, with minds much like yours or mine in many ways -- not by magical or mythical "evil beasts."

rshowalter - 03:47pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8844 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?224@184.j5CeaC3PuTt^752613@356514@.f0ce57b , you said something that depends on some checkable facts.

And you're dead wrong. You said:

" We must prepare for all scenarios, likely or not. The cost of not doing so was demonstrated yesterday and is far greater than the cost of all preparation combined."

We cannot prepare for all scenarios, because there are too many of them, and the cost of trying to do so could beggar us, and leave us much less well defended than if we made some rational choices, and did some rational things.

Have you ever thought about how many ways there are to get at the United States, or any other complicated sociotechnical system?

We have to find ways to safety that are practical. Not delude ourselves.

Sometimes, you have to count.

rshowalter - 03:51pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8845 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Other nations and people can't protect themselves anywhere nearly completely, for just the same reasons.

And so, in addition to incentives, and "understanding" in the sense of amity, there is a role for rational fear.

Deterrance works.

It works for people in their everyday lives, within society. And we need to have it work among nations.

But it has to be stable, and reasonable under the circumstances, all the circumstances, as they are.

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense