toolbar Click Here for's Mutual Funds Special

 [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 (1772 previous messages)

rshowalter - 11:19am Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1773 of 1781) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

And with the internet, ideas can be nicely laid down, for presentation, familiarisation, and re-representation -- and with all the dialectic variations human beings want, need, and enjoy.

lunarchick - 11:25am Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1774 of 1781),7368,395145,00.html,6961,,00.html

rshowalter - 11:25am Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1775 of 1781) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

By George !

We can learn to talk together better, and get unblocked. rshowalter 3/27/01 11:21am

almarst-2001 - 12:09pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1776 of 1781)

Why Bush Administration Hawks Cast a Beady Eye on Beijing -,8599,104055,00.html

"Who are we without an enemy?"

rshowalter - 12:12pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1777 of 1781) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

I was just about to post this -- let me do so before reading your posting:

News Analysis: U.S. Policy on Russia A Tougher Stance ..... by JANE PERLEZ ...... March 24

".. in thoughts and deeds (the Bush administration) has taken a sharp departure from the engagement policies of its predecessor, moving toward isolating Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin.

. . . . . .

"In a stylistic touch that said much about Russia's position in the universe of the Bush administration, Mr. Rumsfeld delivered a speech on missile defense in Germany last month to defense specialists but failed to mention Russia and left before the Russian delegate, Sergei B. Ivanov, spoke."

I wonder how many ordinary Americans, who do business in the world, would have behaved so shoddily? I don't need to wonder what Queen Elizabeth would think of such behavior -- it is immature, unworthy of respect -- forgetful of lessons of history and reasonable human experience -- the sort of thing done by the sort of person that other self respecting people (and nations) would prefer not to associate with.


From the same article:

"Like the Clinton administration, but more clearly and aggressively, the Bush foreign policy advisers have said they plan to expand NATO, a move that Russia believes is intended to belittle and contain it.

"Many of the senior Bush appointees from Mr. Wolfowitz to Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser were board members of the United States Committee on NATO, a group dedicated to the expansion of the alliance perhaps as far as the Baltics.

If one reads the articles by these men, giving the rationale for expanding NATO, and notes the rank they have been given, one might wonder whether the best possible arguments for breaking up NATO, rather than expanding it, have been given.

Perhaps, so long after WWII, and with the Cold War long since over, the American forces, who have done such an admirable job in the past, but who are now so hungry to make a world where they can have enemies, should be invited to return home. There might be no greater favor that could be done to the world at large, and to the United States.

Military alliances are built of bonds of sentiment and common belief,and both these kinds of bonds are fraying very quickly between the US and all its allies.

The reasons for the US shunning the Russians, and maintaining hostility toward the Russians, for all their faults, seem especially inappropriate, given what was actually done in the Cold War.

almarst-2001 - 12:38pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1778 of 1781)

rshowalter 3/30/01 12:12pm

Very good and importand comment.

The perception is that some powerful interests in US, and not just in this Administration, are desperately looking for the new enemies to justify the support for their interests. It may come to such a provocation that a hostil reaction will result, "justifying" this policy. The danger is, no one knows precisely where the "trip-wire" may be when a hostil intent is assumed.

rshowalter - 12:46pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1779 of 1781) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Don't let Russia provoke. One hopes all other nations do not provoke.

Be reasonable. Be firm. Be subject to argument from evidence. And note how much staff work persuasion sometimes takes -- the fact that an idea does not stick the first time doesn't mean it may not later.

Progress is being made.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (2 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