New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(995 previous messages)
- 07:04pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#996
China ready to talk NMD with U.S. Wednesday, 14 March 2001 12:44
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
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
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
- 10:26pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#997
"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.
- 10:56pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#998
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
- 11:12pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#999
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.
- 11:14pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1000
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 ?
- 11:15pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1001
One thousand and one excuses have been made as to why the missile
status quo will remain ... how can this chain of NONcommonNonSense
- 11:45pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#1002
The missiles became the most effective deterrent of the War. As
long as there are war-bellied conflicts, the missiles can play a
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.
- 04:52am Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1003
Laos: carpet bombed,
the children collect bombs from the
blowing off their legs
bombs are used as ornaments,
sold as scrap metal back
New York Times on the Web Forums Science