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?
(1791 previous messages)
- 02:21pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1792
- 02:22pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1793
The objective must be to move away from unnecessary
And away from wholly disproportionate means of threatening,
including nuclear weapons.
To this end, the past has to be understood.
Distinctions between the American government, and the small
subset that has made crucial military decisions, needs to be made.
Context to the Cold War: Dark Sun by Richard Rhodes rshowalter
and especially rshowalter
" US firebombing of North Korean cities and the
bombing of large dams killed more than two million civilians."
Could it be, that after that injury, for that culture, especially
with us the allies of the hated Japanese, the Koreans could not make
Might not be an example of other problems, and a very important
example of why it does not make sense to ever inflict unforgivable
injuries on another nation, as nuclear weapons will inevitably do?
We need to move towards peace -- it is in everybody's interest
(except for very few) and all though the world, nation states are
getting clearer about that. The US, leader of the older way, may be
last to change. But it would change, too, and that could come
- 02:24pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1794
3/29/01 12:07pm For some summaries, with linkages of the work
that "lunarchick" and I have doing, you might be interested in the
discussion, in Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159
The first part of the thread, that connects to the movie
Casablanca , may interest some as well. It gives reasons why to Cold
War needs to be over.
- 02:34pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1795
Though there may be other possibilities, the possibility that a
small group of very unpatriotic individuals, including the Bushes,
may have acted, and may be acting, in deep conflict with the
interest of the United States needs to be considered. 1699--- almarst-2001
3/29/01 12:20pm to 1704 --- rshowalter
- 03:18pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1796
A VERY interesting article http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/30/science/30NIF.html
March 30, 2001 Laser Project Hits a Snag; Court Hints At
Conflict by JAMES GLANZ
" A federal judge has temporarily barred backers
of an Energy Department laser project from citing an expert
panel's evaluation, a decision suggesting that the panel may have
been improperly stacked with people who have a stake in the
. . . .
" The department says the laser project, called
the National Ignition Facility, will help ensure the reliability
of the nation's nuclear stockpile without actual nuclear tests, by
simulating conditions close to those in bombs. Opponents say the
project was built only to give Livermore weapons scientists a
mission after the end of the cold war.
" The suit was filed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council in Washington and a local organization critical of
the laboratory. It charges, in effect, that the department filled
the panel with scientists who had a financial and professional
stake in the laser, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee
" This court injunction suggests that D.O.E.'s
review is not independent and is not even legal," said Senator Tom
Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who opposes the project, referring to the
Department of Energy. "We should not continue to pour money into
N.I.F. without a rigorous, independent review."
I don't see, personally, how such a review can possibly
justify the facility on defense grounds. The physics problems in
nuclear weapons are of a mathematical nature that data from the
facility, even if it were perfect, would not help with. That
shouldn't be hard to show.
Could it be that the entire US military is now engaged in an
exercise, much like that suggested for the National Ignition
Facility, that is nothing more than a boondoggle?
Could "missions" and "threats" be inflated, or invented, or
manufactured for no other reason?
Could this be reinforcing fraud at other levels -- all protected
by "expert endorsements" that are not questioned?
It seems to me that the question is worth some attention.
When I had a conversation with a person at CIA, last september,
related to the proposal, this thread, #266-269, it was clear that
after the committee discussion, they wanted to be especially clear
that I advocated nuclear rather than total
disarmament. So far as I could gather, they didn't have a clue what
the United States needed such a large military for.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science