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 - 05:43pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9877 of 9878)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm doing what I think is right for the United States of America, I'm using my own name, which has been in the Madision telephone book for years. The government can find out a lot about me, and has known a lot about me for a long time. The government has had permission to copy some of my email accounts, permission delivered to a Federal employee who knows me well, more than a year ago. I have a good deal of reason to think that permission has been used.

Anyone who cares much, who wants to check my motives, can do so - - I've left a paper trail, collaborating things I've said on this thread, for many, many years.

Nobody is paying me to do this, and, except for some very old assurances from Bill Casey, that I can't prove, nobody has made me any promises to do so, on any conditions at all.

I think you, and people like you, are misleading the United States of America, and if you have questions about my motives, perhaps that's understandable. I have questions about yours, as well.

My identity is open, and easy to check.

What about yours?

As for my loyalty to the United States - - I've asked that some things be checked, and if these things could stand the light of day, I think they would have been some time ago.

rshowalter - 05:48pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9878 of 9878)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

To defend the United States, technology has to work.

If it is a substantial certainty that a proposed weapons system cannot work (and if people bend over backwards not to check, that can be suspected) then there is reason to doubt the patriotism, and honesty, of those who support the system who know that, or should know that.

You asked, a few days ago, what I meant by checking. I told you. Why can't things be checked? Given the stakes, it seems important that the United States put its resources into things that can work. Not things that appear to be frauds.

Gisterme , I've said, from time to time, that I thought you are Condoleezza Rice, or part of a team she heads. I surely hope that I've been wrong in this, though it still seems like a reasonable inference.

Your gisterme 9/28/01 3:07pm ... , read in terms of the other things you've posted, and in terms of postings in the last few days, indicates that at the level of substance, you're holding an empty bag. And know it well enough to get emotionally upset.

It is in the interest of the United States of America that resources be directed toward projects that can work - - not ones that can be shown to be fatally flawed.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But that's something that should be checked. Which means, for issues where disagreements occur, checked on an umpired basis that has high credibility from many points of view. I'm not asking any body to "believe" me on technical things. The issues involved can all be checked.

I'm not alone in thinking the missile defense programs have flaws. Perhaps you've read some comments by Friedman, Dowd, and others on the subject? If the Bush administration had good arguments to bring to bear against these (very widespread) doubts - - why not deliver them?

You haven't so far.

I want to take some time to prepare some more detailed responses.

Missile Defense, like other subjects involving the defense of the United States of America is important enough to merit right answers.

On some basics, with the world as it is, that means answers that can be checked.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense