[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 (1662 previous messages)

dirac_10 - 10:11am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1663 of 1674)

lunarchick - 03:23am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1653 of 1659)

Science is knowledge, it's the decisions regarding it's application that require people with VISION.

Regardless of the VISION of the locals, there will always be predatory people/organizations. There will always be someone out to make a buck. There will always be someone who has a grudge about some national border. For the next century at least.

And all the weapons and nightmares of science is becoming available to them.

sumofallfears - 10:17am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1664 of 1674)

"Nor do I know of a responsible, decent human being who could"

  • Thank you for your support of some of my positions. I would like to point out that I do not believe in this phrase you posted above. Considering the rationale for stability in this world is holding each nations citizens nuclear hostage for which each nation does so willfully. So while I indeed do advocate such a position, I would not call it "decent".

    almarst-2001 - 10:30am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1665 of 1674)

    sumofallfears 3/29/01 9:39am

    Aggree completely.

    Let me just add one small thing: Nothing is more dangerous to the nation and the whole World then the feeling of invencibility and absolute superiority. On the one side it creates the criminal temptations and on the other - the desperate determination to resist, overcome and prevent that to happen at ANY cost.

    dirac_10 - 10:32am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1666 of 1674)

    There is virtually no chance we can knock down all the Russian ICBM's. Even if we had the technical ability, which we don't, half of the CIA/FBI is on the KGB payroll. We have no chance of keeping the method secret from them.

    But it will most certainly knock down anything N. Korea or Saddam has.

    And I find it humorous that some think that all the rapidly increasing number of dictators and terrorists and outright criminal organizations would never ever do it because of fear of retaliation or whatever. That we should base our national survival on the supposed 100% rational behavior of dictators, terrorists, and criminals.

    And the Europeans? After 50 years of putting the heads of the American people on the nuclear chopping block to defend them, why would they want it removed?

    To say that it would stop N. Korea and not Russia is defensible. To say in one breath that it wouldn't stop N. Korea, and would stop Russia is ridiculous.

    sumofallfears - 10:40am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1667 of 1674)

    dirac_10 - 10:32am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1666 of 1666)

    Why would the "North Koreans" "Do it" as you say? and why would Iraq do it, in particular when did not do so when its very nation was being taken to the cleaners by allied forces.

    Actually to say North Korea would utilize WMD for no reason other then to attack America is actually quite "ridiculous".

    Defend your thinking. Or is that too hard?

    lunarchick - 10:41am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1668 of 1674)

    half of the CIA/FBI is on the KGB payroll

    and visa versa ?

    Sounds like:

    Diffusion Theory ...

    data/knowledge moving backwards and forwards fueld by greed(dollars).

    sumofallfears - 10:44am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1669 of 1674)

    dirac_10 - 10:32am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1666 of 1666)

    You seem to miss the entire point being made. Why is that? Every point you made has little merit. Defend it.

    sumofallfears - 10:50am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1670 of 1674)

    The use of 'rouge states' in underlying the need for NMD has no merit-all that matters is the rational actor model. Thus why the GOP and current administration dropped the model within the last two months.

    Second. Technology cannot be locked down. You cannot put nuclear weapons back in a bottle. I would rather live in an environment in which nuclear weapons did exist then pretend they do not. I advocate Kenneth Waltz on this one-neorealism-every position on that concept I believe thrust at your perspective. The critical difference between my realist approach on nuclear weapons is that nuclear weapons will exist until another weapon comes along that makes them absolete. Then people will want to run around trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons-just as they tried to rid the world of chemical weapons-----hasn't worked has it. Some would argue my position is contrary to my position on Nuclear Utilization Theory (NUTs-or the actual platform of NMD). It is not.My position is also realist in that sense as well. Being the largest holder of nuclear devices on this planet-I am aware that my decision to either employ or reject Nuclear Utilization Theory will rebound all over the world in how other nations consider a reaction. Nations despite what people on this board may think-are actually linked when in consideration of defense policy. All nations are in reaction to another. What you consider a defensive policy is actually a offensive position based on the perception of something else. One need only look at America’s current ambitions to see how its administration defines itself as 'defensive' and the world at large calls back 'offensive'. The system is offensive while being defensive-it is both.

    The United States being the largest nuclear power like it or not is the pinball that will bounce off every nations view of what it should do in regards to nuclear policy. If the British were the largest holder of nuclear power it fall to them-if India to them-if China to them if Pakistan to them If Russia to them. Russia has taken a position that places Nuclear Utilization onto the back burner-and makes the world not have to reroute its view of rational actions. Americas tends to make each slap of the offensive/defensive position

    a constant Tilt.

    almarst-2001 - 10:52am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1671 of 1674)

    Dirac surelly missed the point that there is no defence against someone irrational. And there many more ways to inflict the harm then lunch a missile.

    More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (3 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