toolbar Click Here for's Mutual Funds Special

 [F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (878 previous messages)

almarstel2001 - 10:18am Mar 8, 2001 EST (#879 of 891)

Excert from pobee2 "Bush's Foreign Policy" 3/8/01 6:42am

"I am a Korean. I am from South Korea. I am now living in Sweden and am always asked which part I am from. I am fed up with answering only the half of my nation to be my nationality. My father in law is in North Korea but our family don't know if he is alive or not. We do hope unification of Korea and this is the problem which is to be solved between north and south.

I want to ask Mr. President of USA, what kind of threat is he feeling now? President Kim in neighboring South Korea also feel threat and so he try to talk with isolated North Korean leader. But why the president of USA try to deter their efforts. Is Bush's threat that of declining military industry or lack of foreign policy leadership? If you put yourself in korean's place, you surely be angry at Bush's policy."

almarstel2001 - 10:25am Mar 8, 2001 EST (#880 of 891)

Excert from - artemis130 "Serbia After Milosevic" 3/7/01 11:34pm

"almarstel2001 - 10:53pm Mar 7, 2001 EST (#151 of 152) - TIME - "NATO's New Balkan Solution: Bring in the Serbs" -,8599,101704,00.html

Yes, I very much remember the farce called Rambouillet, followed by the biggest US propaganda blitz since WWII and in my living memory. I also remember how many of the same board members here were predicting exactly what we now see.

The withdrawal of OSCE monitors under the wing of Willy Walker, the hourly cellcoms between Thaci and Albright, the brain dead congress members arguing to arm the KLA and step back, the conscious and cowardly decisions to bomb civilian targets in efforts to attain zero risk to NATO troops and on and on.

Not that any of us need to be reminded but others I think now understand how corrupt; how pathologically addicted to taking foolish risks; how ready to take advantage of any opportunity to play to an audience's emotions for votes and some fictitious legacy and, not to put it beyond him, how ready to even pad his library funds with the likes of KLA drug money laundered through Ruder Finn, this past president was.

Some of you may not agree but as far as I'm concerned - you could just as easily put Milosevic or Clinton at the end of that last paragraph. Two pustulant peas in the same political pod.

rshowalt - 11:23am Mar 8, 2001 EST (#881 of 891)

Is there any place on the web where competent people (engineers with names, for example) are saying that MD is feasible, or that MD, as presently proposed, would materially improve US security if it WAS feasible?

Have engineers with names EVER said, right out, with their professional engineering tickets and reputations on the line - that MD was "feasable?"

I know people have said "let's try." But in 20 years, does anybody know of anybody reputable who has actually come out, in public, and said --- I've looked at the technology -- and this thing is technically feasible?

My search skills aren't up to Lunarchick's, or a lot of other people who may be reading this.

Has anybody standing in the position of a competent, detail checking engineer EVER said missile defense was FEASIBLE?

Is anybody with a name, and a technical reputation, doing so on detailed technical grounds NOW ?

rshowalt - 11:27am Mar 8, 2001 EST (#882 of 891)

In the course of attending to this tread, and related ones I've done a bit of looking around -- and Dawn Riley has come up with all sorts of interesting references --- but nothing remotely like anybody saying "this is feasible."

Am I missing something?

. If 20% of all the money "spent" on Star Wars had been STOLEN -- would anybody know?

Would THE NEW YORK TIMES and other news organizations be able to MISS THIS?

(With current rules of engagement, my own guess is "they might."

lunarchick - 05:54pm Mar 8, 2001 EST (#883 of 891)

rshowalter - 07:49pm Mar 8, 2001 EST (#884 of 891) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

A piece from last year still makes valid points about the US nuclear posture. But it also illustrates points where the the Bush administration, which is committed to large nuclear weapon reductions, without negotiation, is taking worthwhile steps that are advances over the Clinton administration position.

DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO: Defense: The world can see through our hypocritical preaching about nuclear arms control by Robert Scheer The Los Angeles Times March 28, 2000

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
 E-mail to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company