Missile Defense

longiiland - 01:30pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#88 of 11858)

this system and those who protest it's development are most likely concealing another agenda

jacko175b - 02:25pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#89 of 11858)

SDI Is Still Mostly a Ronnie Reagan Pipe Dream

The fatal flaw in the present system is its inability to tell the difference between a nuclear missile and a decoy. Just recently 35 scientists made this absolutely clear, together with an earlier warning from an MIT expert in such things.

George W. Bush needs to understand this sooner rather than later. President Bubba's hokus pocus so far concerning a limited defense system is merely a way to avoid this from becoming a phony-baloney campaign issue.

Frankly, the $60-billion spent on SDI to date has been mostly a waste of money. Of course, someday it might be possible after the cost soars into the zillions?

The real question in the near term is whether this is a massive Military-Industrial Complex ripoff. I can't help thinking of President Eisenhower's warning to "beware of the military-industrial complex" before he left office.

Think of that and the fact that the Patriot Missile was a miserable failure in the Gulf War, despite what flack artists at the Pentagon said. Had they told the truth we might not be financing SDI today.

cantab6b - 02:42pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#90 of 11858)

Adminstration Attorneys: US could go ahead with ABM defense system

NTY reports that:

Administration lawyers have advised President Clinton that, in their view, he could begin building the first piece of a national missile defense system without violating a 1972 arms control treaty with Russia, senior officials said.

The lawyers' interpretations, which were drafted at the White House's request, are likely to be rejected by Russia, and the president has not made a decision on them. But they offer Mr. Clinton a way to announce that the United States would go ahead with missile defenses while letting the next administration decide whether to break the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.

The prospect of withdrawing from the treaty has already threatened to undermine relations with Russia, as well as with European allies who view the pact as a foundation of nuclear arms control. But a delay in construction of a missile defense could leave Mr. Clinton, and especially Vice President Al Gore, vulnerable to Republican criticism in the middle of the presidential campaign.

The lawyers' findings could allow work on a defense system to begin while giving Mr. Clinton and his successor another year to decide whether to abrogate the treaty......... SEE LINK

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/061500missile-defense.html

longiiland - 02:42pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#91 of 11858)

The fatal flaw in the present system is

longiiland - 02:45pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#92 of 11858)

The fatal flaw in the present system is

(11766 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense