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?

gisterme - 05:44pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8969 of 8980)

I'm glad you got the point of what I was saying, Robert. Our enemy is much less flexible and resiliant than we are. He has even more to fear from complexity than we do...and can only wage war effectively against us if we act in a predictable way.

Another thing we do know about this enemy is that he has finite resources. He can do his worst to us all; but, only until his resources are expended. Even if he manages to nuke some city here or elsewhere, tragic as that would be, that won't kill freedom and it certanly won't spare him. It would just remind all the brotherhood of western civilization that we must never again forget that freedom is not free. Like precious gold, if left unattended, freedom will surely dissappear.

The condition of freedom in the world right now is one of "illness"; but, the world's immune system has already begun working to expell the disease. In the long run, love will always overcome hatred, kindness will always overcome malice and that which is good will overcome that which is evil.

We must remember that, as demonstrated by Hitler, the real objective of evil is to spill as much blood as possible. There's no distinction there beween the innocent and the guilty. It's only volume that counts. The more we can reduce the volume of blood-letting in this war, the less we satisfy evil. Given the extraodinary circumstances of the situation we should take extraordinary measures to uncover the heart of this evil. Once that's revealed the thrust needs to be swift and final. I'm certain that all peace-loving peoples, whatever their culture may be, will offer all the help they can toward revealing the heart of this common enemy.

rshowalter - 06:18pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8970 of 8980)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 9/13/01 5:44pm ... you better be certain of that.

Just be sure that you're dealing with the common enemy in the ways that allies feel comfortable about.

gisterme , we've both agreed that we'd like a "world without nukes" - - and we'd like a world with less terror , not more.

Just a suggestion. Given the number of possibilities, when you set up an attack -- at least do the exercise -- how can you attack them multiple ways at once.

The best attacks, historically, have mostly had the following characteristic

1. Set 'em up for a specific attack, that sets up their forces in a predictable way.

2. Hit them from another dimension, where there defensive setup, for the attack they thought they were facing, disarms, or nearly disarms them.

3. Reduce them to disarray, and take 'em down.

(Several switches may be necessary to get to disarray.)

MOST OF ALL , whatever you do, have your allies really behind you.

AND HAVE AN END GAME -- this is absolutely essential. One that works -- not a botch like the Desart Storm war -- which looked like a masterpiece, and ended as a travesty.

If you can't do that, you can easily go slam-banging into disaster.

If you can't do that, it is better to do nothing.

rshowalter - 06:20pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8971 of 8980)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Think hard about doing nothing.

Are the consequences really so bad?

(No kidding - - doing nothing is an important option -- and usually better than doing something wrong.)

rshowalter - 06:26pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8972 of 8980)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Especially this time.

Can you really get your allies behind you?

If not, you better think hard about why you can't, and fix the fixable.

Deaths so far are nothing compared to what could happen if you botch this.

The Russians , the Chinese , and many other countries have to accept what you're doing, or the long term consequences are likely to be counter-productive.

You have to think of consequences, you have to be right, and you have to do the best you can -- with awareness of the grave limitations and inflexibilities that you really have.

If you had a real world community behind you -- getting control of terrorism would be easy.

HOW HARD HAVE YOU WORKED AT THAT?

rshowalter - 06:28pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8973 of 8980)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For instance, you better understand clearly , the reasons why almarst has expressed so many criticisms of the United States here.

The Bush administration should act to make things better , not worse.

If you're doing the opposite, other nations in the world have plenty of reasons to resist. And a lot of effective ways to do so.

rshowalter - 06:32pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8974 of 8980)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Bush administration isn't necessarily going into this thing with lily white hands.

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN "NAZI" AND "NAZI+BUSH" ON THIS THREAD

MD8675-8672 rshowalter 9/8/01 7:49pm

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense