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?

lunarchick - 04:50am Apr 4, 2001 EST (#1964 of 1967)
lunarchick@www.com

http://globalarchive.ft.com/totalsearch/index.jsp?do=basic&query=Putin results (1-5) More... 1. Norilsk wins platinum export approval Apr 4, 2001 2. Putin to tackle reforms and capital flight Apr 4, 2001 3. Comment Apr 4, 2001 4. Editorial comment: Mr Putin's priorities Apr 4, 2001 5. Editorial comment: Putin's divisions Apr 2, 2001

The economist next edition via http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=541821

lunarchick - 05:19am Apr 4, 2001 EST (#1965 of 1967)
lunarchick@www.com

MTV Moscow to be run by the 'Gas Company' and the Moscow-ites are rioting as their last link to press freedom is 'closed'!

One would have thought that to have freedom of the press would add to the statue of both a leader and the reputation of Russia.

On the economic front if Russia has a small block of shares, then, it has to look at the basics that it CAN do to bring foreign-er$-currency in. This would include basic tourism with the youth market, and youth looks to a free MTV. On the manufacturing side, there have to be basic products that Russia can produce and export. It might look to it's culture, find that that it likes, and package and promote it.

Australia has had to consider many of the problems facing Russia and look to VALUE ADDING with regards to primary produce, leading to some higher value exports. http://www.abc.net.au/landline/archives.htm http://www.abc.net.au/landline/

rshowalter - 09:26am Apr 4, 2001 EST (#1966 of 1967)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 makes good postings, and he's right that it is time to talk, so things can get better rather than worse. There has been, of course, a huge amount of talking about nuclear disarmament for years, but the results have not born fruit for reasons - and now it may be possible to get matters clarified, and widely understood, where it has not been possible before.

I'd like to contribute to that. For reasons related to my background 1942 rshowalter 4/3/01 11:52am I'm without key credentials, and have been subject, over long duration, to attributions of insanity. Now, these problems are becoming much less, and opportunities are opening up for me. There may be ways, with some help in making contacts, and some "vouching" for me to become effective.

If I were able to meet with some people at the UN, not officially, but on an informal basis, some things might be done. How proud that would make me.

rshowalter - 09:27am Apr 4, 2001 EST (#1967 of 1967)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Perhaps it will be possible to work, in ways that are already largely set up, to get a consensus for sensible military balances. Perhaps I need not be involved. Much of the world seems ready to listen - the Bush administration is largely isolated, and the isolation seems to be deepening. Trifkovic makes sense when he writes as follows:

Tuesday, February 13, 2001 IN EUROPE, AT LEAST, NMD DEBATE CONTINUES by Srdja Trifkovic http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST021301.htm

" The message from Europe is that the narrative coming from Washington is simply not good enough. A reasonable question that has to be addressed by the Bush team is this: If deterrence worked against a heavily armed Soviet Union, why is it deemed inoperable against a roguish Third World regime with just a handful of rockets? And even if the United States is forced to confront, one day, a demented, logic-defying "rogue" regime prepared to risk utter self-annihilation by threatening a nuclear, chemical or biological strike against American targets, will that regime rely on ballistic missiles as its delivery system of choice?

" There is good reason for everyone to be cautious. The Economist, ever solidly Atlanticist in its editorial line, warned after the Munich conference that ambitious plans--especially ones that count on putting weapons in space--could provoke an arms race that would leave everyone worse off. We agree, and while we remain deeply skeptical of NMD on a variety of grounds, we support reason, calm, and caution in discussing this issue. The Bush Administration should stop pretending that the NMD debate is over when in reality it has not properly began.

I've raised some questions about the moral standing, and fundamental motivation of the Bush administration MD policy -- and its general military agressiveness. rshowalter 4/3/01 12:15pm

On some interesting matters, including another hostage crisis: Clouds Over George Bush by Robert Parry http://www.consortiumnews.com/c122898a.html seems well worth reading.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense