New York Times on the Web


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 (963 previous messages)

lunarchick - 03:21pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#964 of 965)

Just reflecting on the above. If Nuclear weapons are 'unusable' in the sense that to use them is to end the world as we know it. Then, if continental land masses developed trading harmony, with conventional defense, they could avoid 'wasting' money on defense and build and strengthen their digital knowledge economies (for here lies true longterm strength).

All States and Powers may soon realise that the diffusion of world populations is such that 'All States' have pluralistic diverse populations.

The 'enemy' were one required, might be within the 'State' .. as an objector to aggressive foreign military strikes.

It may be an 'individual' rather than a battery of phallic war toys that ultimately holds the balance of 'reason'.

If the above were to be, then most nations might ignore the posturing of the 'Super Power' .. and just get on with life.

Ultimately the 'Super Power' would fall behind as it allocated too substantial a proportion of the National Budget to useless war toys and too little to the BASIC NEEDS of it's own people ... many of whom may live in poverty and be denied educational and career opportunity.

Begs the question:

"Is the WAR GAME really about male political egos -- not defence?"

rshowalter - 03:37pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#965 of 965) Delete Message
Robert Showalter


Another part may be 50 million dollar stakes, or larger ones, for "key players" in a fraud. All of whom may have "betrayed trust" in all the ways that matter, long ago.

Can I prove this right now? No, though I can provide some pieces. Are the things needed to prove it laying around? If I'm right, they have to be.

And if I'm wrong, I'll hasten to apologize to anyone who can show that.

Historically, presidents left a power vacuum in American nuclear policy, and people like LeMay and his proteges, and people in the CIA, and some contractors, filled it. And now, that conspiracy, long past any legitimate usefulness, and long since financially corrupt, is menacing the peace of the whole world, and imposing huge costs on innocent people.

Subject to the proper kinds of challenges, they are approximately as well defended as our nuclear weapons installations -- which are barely defended at all.

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

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

Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

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