toolbar Play Today's New York Times Crossword Puzzle for Free

 [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 (950 previous messages)

rshowalter - 12:03pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#951 of 956) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

That's a very good question.

I don't know who you are, but you are a very sagacious person. If you could do so (and I'll not expect it, but I'll hope for it) could you list any coherent and believable ideas you have about the answer?

The only idea that I can come up with, that fits what I know, raises questions about the legitimacy of Mr.Bush and his administration.

Does ANYBODY have a coherent reason for a missile defense system that - considered as a system, can't possibly work?

almarstel2001 - 01:03pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#952 of 956)


Sorry but my English isn't good enough to know what "sagacious person" means. Still hope its not somthing terribly shamefull;)

As for coherent set of ideas... As far as I remember, Clinton did not reject the idea of NMD either. So it has to do with somting else, including the prevealing american mentality of ultimate power of money to buy enything and to solve any problem. And the constant "adds compain" just continuelsy reminds us just how much "joy" awaits us once we get this new "toy". Just like this bottle of a Coke;) Can you think of anyone other the "Coca Cola Corp" as a main beneficiary?

In my view, the main interests ($) are of the military-industrial complex (sorry for repeating this as a slogan) and some influential entrenched since Cold War Washington think-tanks who have to justify their existance and keep the political influence by inventing the new enemies after the Cold War. The main question they probaly ask is the one, Mad. Allbright asked while insisting on bombing the Serbia: "What for do we have such a fine military if we can't use it?" Indeed, the 30% of a trillion $ budget military has to have some purpose and justification. And its not the defending of the American soil...

So, how can you justify all this conventional might, or just a thread of using it, which become absolete against even small country posessing even a few nuclear ballistic missils?

Another reason may be the one raised by Putin: Since after the Cold War, America is loosing its importants to its alias as an ultimate protector via NATO, the monopolised missils defense system may be the answer. Againg, it will require the credible thread to exist (even created if so needed;) for its justification.

In my view there is the whole set of related questions, including, among others, the need to maintain and even expand the NATO and the need to maintaing so large and costly offensive military around the glob.

Eventually it all comes down to the basic - the role the America wants to play as the only and ultimate superpower, the means and tools by which this role may be fulfilled and, most importantly - WHO WILL BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS POLICY?

rshowalter - 01:24pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#953 of 956) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Very interesting !

It seems to me that, if FACTS were established, the US military rationale would be indefensible. It would have to change.

Or, if the position actually was coherent, and something that could stand the light of day, other people might come to understand it, so we'd all be safer.

I believe that if the American people actually understood that Russia and China actually are afraid of, and in effect, being threatend by, first strikes, they'd put a stop to it.

I don't think you're looking at a coherent policy of the American people, or of the American government that exists in public, either. You're looking at the products of a scared, greedy, very old, corrupt conspiracy that needs, not only for the outside world's sake, but for America's sake, to be uncovered.

It seems to me that it should be entirely practical to do this, in reasonably short order. I've got a suggestion about half drafted -- only a "thought experiment" -- but I do believe that it might suggest the elements of a solution to the basic problem -- which is uncovering hidden facts. The key point of the plan is basic. It is openness, and the presence of effective umpiring mechanisms, to show, to all reasonable people, what the facts are.

almarstel2001 - 01:28pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#954 of 956)

Actually, there is some very funny and annoing aspect of the America's Cold War "victory" - there is a very little "treasure" found. Akin what may feel an all importand triumphant idealistic General, coming back to his country after defeating distant enemies, happily proclaimnig that there is no more enemies from now on, just to discover that in this case, no one needs him any more. His importance diminished, his role and the future in fluke. The "friends" are already dealing with who used to be enemy for their selfish benefit and even, his wife alrady left him during his absence;)

The pitty thing, once the job is declared successfully complete, the layoff may be just around the corner;)

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (2 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