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?

almarst-2001 - 10:37pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#914 of 917)

rshowalter 3/10/01 10:03pm

Absolutly so.

Moreover, one can be absolutly blind not to see that US military posture is extreamly OFFENSIVE. Most of its systems under deployement and development are purelly offensive in nature. The increase in military expendutere planned is to expand its attacking capabilities as well as so called "rapid deployement forces" and long range heavy-lifting capabilities. As well as long-range stand-off strike missils and aircraft cariers. The only reduction discussed I heard of was about nuclear attack subs, which are by design, exactly DEFENSIVE systems targeted against Soviet ballistic missils submarines fleet which Russia has a great difficalties to maintain, not talking about expand. And even those are discussed to be modified to add the attacking capabilites to by fitting on cruise missils and diversion divers teams.

The picture is very clear to anyone willing to look and think.

I am not a military expert, but when Russia and China declare that US NMD will null and void ALL the prior strategic arms agreements, what I can read from this, they are talking about putting the nucler arsenal in space.

What could NMD do against let's say geostatical satelites staying above Russia and China, fitted with dosens of nuclear bombs and decoys, ready to be dropped on a precalculated orbital trajectory toward potential enemy? There is no easily detectable staring stage. It will be very hard or rather virtually impossible to attack and destroy those satelites on the first strike without prior detection. And this will create so dangerous situation, the Americans would wish they still live in a Cold War AMD world.

Wish me to be wrong...

almarst-2001 - 10:49pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#915 of 917)

rshowalter 3/10/01 10:03pm

"If Russia and the US were prepared to take down THEIR nuclear weapons, China would have every incentive to take down theirs..."

Not entirely true. The overhelming US convetional power, extreamly offensive in nature, would require China as well as Russia to keep their nuclear capabilities as the only affordable option for defense. It is no incident that one of the first changes in russian military dictrine, incidently triggered by the US bombing of Yugoslavia, against International Law and authorisation by Security Council, was a desision to allow the use of a tactical nuclear arsenal for the first strike.

Here is another example when aggresive use of force by US caused the drastic deterioration in the World stability and peace and already made the World more dangerous then even during the cold War.

As Americans like to say, "There is no such think as a free lounch". The first deposit has already being made.

lunarchick - 11:53pm Mar 10, 2001 EST (#916 of 917)
lunarchick@www.com

Israel

lunarchick - 12:09am Mar 11, 2001 EST (#917 of 917)
lunarchick@www.com

Tax payers allocate accountability to their Representatives via the ballot box.

When a mass of goverment business runs without adequate reporting back to tax payers the abyss is cause for concern.

- - - - -

Additionally, the uglyness of the body bag has further removed taxpayers from accountability. The body bag, ugly as it is, brought taxpayers close to the actions and consequences of government.

The AUTO-war, war of remote control .. distances the 'war' further from the tax payer, from people, in the dominant State. Who may be lead to believe that:

Third world peoples, people who don't speak the language of the dominant culture(s), people who live in areas that are distanced, remote, or live under different and seemingly strange cultures ... can become 'targets' to be focused on by weapons of destruction.

And that:

The 'value' of a marginalised person is not regarded as equivalent to the value of an American.

So, real soliders, real Americans who might be brought back injured or in a bodybag, serve the purpose of bringing home the consequences of aggressive action. Whereas the AUTO-war may seem to happen at a distance removed .. and not apprear to be real.

Is there any difference between the forces of PUBLIC OPINION in the USA (supposed democracy), Russia, China, (and have to include on a population basis) India ?

Does and AUTO-war remove the influence of public opinon, and increase the influence of autocratic military (and political) decision makers.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense