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?
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. 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".
- 10:30am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1665
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.
- 10:32am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1666
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
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
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.
- 10:40am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1667
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?
- 10:41am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1668
half of the CIA/FBI is on the KGB payroll
and visa versa ?
Diffusion Theory ...
data/knowledge moving backwards and forwards fueld by
- 10:44am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1669
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.
- 10:50am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1670
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
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
a constant Tilt.
- 10:52am Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1671
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.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science