toolbar Sign up for Angelbeat forum on the mobile Internet

 [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 (1631 previous messages)

lunarchick - 04:25pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1632 of 1641)

[ Kant's grave ]

rshowalter - 04:31pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1633 of 1641) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

On increasing transparency, and establishing the essential facts most important for peace, these thoughts still seem sensible to me, and practically possible.

953: rshowalter 3/12/01 1:24pm

956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm "It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished Goals:

"Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.


" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

"work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

closing : rshowalter 3/12/01 3:37pm

" 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.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the conspiracy part. Maybe it is stupidity. Either way, the FACTS will favor peaceful solutions.

If one or two senior officials in effected nation states were prepared to make some phone calls, I personally believe that this sort of fact finding- fact explaining effort could be organized. I've had reasons to think this for some time, and with discourse here they have strengthened.

lunarchick - 04:34pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1634 of 1641)

On 'energy' ... apart from oil, there seem to be many ways to create energy, some new and under patient. Provision of systems to countries may depend on guarantees that payments flow backwards with regards to patient rights.

almarst-2001 - 04:34pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1635 of 1641)

"But ways to check are increasing rapidly, and for that reason, the truth has much more of a chance than it did."

That why it became so importand to Europe to develop its own "strategic decisions" capabilities outside NATO, the move, the US is vehemently opposes. most importantly, this will include the strategic survalence via satelites. The Europe currently lacks such capability and relies on CIA and US-dominated NATO which in turn, uses US satelites.

lunarchick - 04:36pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1636 of 1641)

An excellent point Alex !

rshowalter - 04:37pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1637 of 1641) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Satellite data is getting cheaper.

And you're exactly right about the need for europe to get capabilities OUTSIDE NATO. AND make its own decisions. France seems favorably inclined toward that. Germany too. The logic goes that way.

And the more effectively Russia can communicate with, and deal with, its European neighbors, the more compelling the logic of peace and stability is.

rshowalter - 04:39pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1638 of 1641) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

The US, by "pulling rank" without giving sensible reasons, may be well on the way towards isolating itself.

In the new world, there are very real LIMITS to what military power can do.

almarst-2001 - 04:40pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1639 of 1641)

lunarchick 3/28/01 4:34pm

As far as I know, there is no real substitution today to the following energy sources:

- Fossil fuels

- Hidro-electric

- Nuclear

Among those, the first today is still the most widely used and versatile. And therefore, the most importand.

rshowalter - 04:42pm Mar 28, 2001 EST (#1640 of 1641) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

I wasn't kidding about the phone calls, either. A phone call from a motivated Gorbechav might make a special difference. A foundation that used to bear his name, the GSI foundation, was defeated in an initiative trying to change the discourse in the US Presidential elections -- but that organization still lives -- and so do others.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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