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?

rshowalter - 07:04pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#996 of 1007)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

China ready to talk NMD with U.S. Wednesday, 14 March 2001 12:44 (ET) UPI

China ready to talk NMD with U.S.

BEIJING, March 14 (UPI) -- Shortly after criticizing U.S. plans for a national missile defense system, a leading China arms negotiator issued an invitation to the United States to open bilateral talks on the issue.

The British Broadcasting Corp. reported Wednesday that senior arms negotiator Sha Zhukang predicted that the development of the NMD would lead to an arms race.

The defense plan was expected to be considered by diplomats when Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen meets with the Bush administration this month.

While acknowledging U.S. statements that NMD was not designed with China in mind, any such advance in armaments would be like "drinking poison in order to quench one's thirst," he was quoted.

The U.S. stance has been that NMD was meant to counter missile attacks from "rouge" nations, such as North Korea or Iraq, but Sha, according to the BBC, said that threat had been exaggerated by the United States and that the program would make it more likely that the United States would exercise increased influence over other countries.

The U.S. Senate has suggested that the United States sell NMD technology to Taiwan. She, speaking at a news conference, said that China would treat NMD-related arms sales to Taiwan as the formation of a military alliance between the United States and Taiwan.

The BBC added that Sha said China was ready to talk about NMD and that he had sent a series of salient points of discussion to Qian to be covered during Qian's talks in Washington.

-- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

almarst-2001 - 10:26pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#997 of 1007)

"The U.S. stance has been that NMD was meant to counter missile attacks from "rouge" nations, such as North Korea or Iraq, but Sha, according to the BBC, said that threat had been exaggerated by the United States and that the program would make it more likely that the United States would exercise increased influence over other countries."

One can't reject this argument as illogical.

almarst-2001 - 10:56pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#998 of 1007)

I think today, after the Cold War, we may indulge ourselve in asking the most basic question - What are the reasons today for hostility between nations?

Today we lost the luxery option of hiding behind the great ideological war of Communism vs. Capitalism, where the "aims justified the means" and where the victory was all importand.

What I would suggest is to try and create a list of existing hot-spots, the players involved and the possible reasons for hostility, including official versions. If you agree, I would exclude what I call "internal problems" of a terrorism/nacionalism/separatism. I also don't know enough about African wars to effectively discuss them.

I would start with a list and we can expand/modify it as we go and discuss it.

Cuba vs. US

Iraq vs. Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/US/Britain

Iraq vs. Israel

Iraq vs. Iran ?

Iran vs. US

Iran vs. Israel

Libia vs. US/Britain

Sudan vs. US

Serbia vs. NATO

Greece vs. Turkey (over Cyprus)

N. Korea vs. S. Korea/US

N. Korea vs. Japan

China vs. Taiwan/US

Total of 13 hot spots, where US is involved in at least 7 of them.

lunarchick - 11:12pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#999 of 1007)
lunarchick@www.com

The problem for SupraNations such as Russia and China may be that they were just too big to administer, or, that there were not the administrative frameworks in place. There move to communism was a people's movement --- unfortunately the 'ideals' were lost as many people within the system were corruptable rather than transparent.

lunarchick - 11:14pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1000 of 1007)
lunarchick@www.com

Thousand upon thousands of hours have gone into trying to bring the Missiles down over half a century.

How many thousand more hours will it take ?

lunarchick - 11:15pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1001 of 1007)
lunarchick@www.com

One thousand and one excuses have been made as to why the missile status quo will remain ... how can this chain of NONcommonNonSense be broken?

almarst-2001 - 11:45pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1002 of 1007)

The missiles became the most effective deterrent of the War. As long as there are war-bellied conflicts, the missiles can play a positive role.

The only disadvantage from US point of view can be the inability to use its overhelming coventional force. But isn't it a positive aspect in preventing the conventional war? As WWII and Vietnam have shown, one can destroy the country and kill milions with conventional arms only.

lunarchick - 04:52am Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1003 of 1007)
lunarchick@www.com

Laos: carpet bombed,
the children collect bombs from the fields,
bombs/mines explode
blowing off their legs

bombs are used as ornaments,
sold as scrap metal back into Vietnam.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense