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 - 09:40am Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9874 of 9875)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I missed something important when I said this:

.. the moral prices paid have to be considered -- they aren't necessarily avoidable, or not worth paying - - but they have to be considered.

What is "worth it" and what is not depends on unavoidably quantitative judgements -- and by shifting weights enough, you can justify almost anything, or call almost anything unjustified.

(Some actions, including some actions the US government has sometimes taken, are wrong as a matter of structure, regardless of weights - stupid and wasteful beyond redemption. But usually, the problem involves weights.)

The weights have to be reasonably explicit , even if specific actions are covert for tactical reasons.

On issues of moral standards , that can be interpreted by friends and enemies alike, this is essential for stability and, pardon an aesthetic point, but it feels right to say it here, for decency.

How many foreign lives is the US willing to destroy to save one (particular) American ?

I'd suggest some low number, under ten. Perhaps three. NOT "an unlimited number."

Our nuclear strategy, and "logic" (so called) assumes something very close to justification for murdering an unlimited number of "outsiders" to save one American.

That isn't workable -- any more than it is workable if other nations assume that they are justified in killing or hurting an unlimited number of us to save one of their own from death, or injury, or discomfort.

If you look at the Cold War, and want to justify everything done, you can. Just set up the proper weights. But I find the weights were sometimes, and too often, wrenchingly ugly and unjust - - and could not stand the light of day.

We can do better than that, and we have to, and "how much?" questions are essential and unavoidable.

A reasonable accounting of the connections and constraints that actually apply to the real cases is essential and unavoidable, too.

These issues, involving "weights" can be considered within our nation publicly, and ought to be clear to other nations as well.

People who would feel "threatened" or "insecure" on the basis of such discussions, should be threatened and insecure. And the possibility that they should be held reponsible for the consequences of some of their gruesomely inhuman "weightings" ought, in my opinion, to be considered.

I believe that some people Sam Nunn and other notables respect, revere, and defer to ought to explain what they did, and make the case that the damage they did was justified. Maybe they can make that case. But I'd like to hear it. Once the case was made, the case for cleaning up some messes would, I believe, be compelling to many.

And yes, I'd go along with the sorts of things Friedman suggests in the current case - - - if we really know what we're doing when we do things.

rshowalter - 09:49am Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9875 of 9875)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If you are a foreign national, it seems to me reasonable that you might consider substituting the name of your country, for America, in the language about weights just above.

And if Americans recoil from that, they are crazy.

We need stable, balanced, workable deterrance. On reserve. Seldom used.

As part of patterns of complex cooperation that would make the world much more beautiful, more prosperous, and safer than the world we have today.

(I just gave an application of the golden rule applied to military circumstances. Stability requires communication, some negotiation, and people who, like it or not, are "reading from the same page." )

Weapons of mass destruction have no reasonable place in such a set of balances , and people should have sense enough to recognize that, and do the practical things needed, in the real world, to get rid of them. It could and should be done, and some other worthwhile things could and should be done on military matters. With the negotiations going on now, people should soon become aware of how to do it, in my opinion.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense