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 - 06:35am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1990 of 1995)
lunarchick@www.com

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,461545,00.html (hotlinked) The US expels ...

lunarchick - 06:48am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1991 of 1995)
lunarchick@www.com

The downing of the airplane in China won't create much of a stir in the world outside the States. The most newsworthy aspect is that the crew .. so many days later ... have no change of clothing .. a factor that won't be scoring China hygene points re the 2008 Olympic Games bid !

rshowalter - 07:13am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1992 of 1995)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm amazed that the US, a country that routinely threatens other countries with first strikes with nuclear weapons (and the threats are veiled, but common) gets so emotional about the detention of a few reconnaisance people.

A nation that threatens first strikes is being agressive whenever it does ANY reconnaisance.

One might ask why the Chinese don't just hold those guys until the US renounces first use of nuclear weapons, and apologizes for not doing so earlier.

Threaten to kill millions, routinely (and recently at a meeting between Bush and a Chinese diplomat ) ---- yet get all upset about 24 guys -- just detained -- not killed.

Go figure ! ! !

If the US would REALLY renounce first strikes, missile numbers could be taken down to a "mutually assured deterrance level" -- maybe with not so many more missiles than China has -- and the whole world would be a lot safer.

If they did that, anti missile shields might make considerably more sense - -- because first strikes would make no sense -- because NO ONE would want to be the country that had killed millions of (Russians, Chinese) and left the rest alive, to take revenge.

lunarchick - 07:45am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1993 of 1995)
lunarchick@www.com

a floating instrument of foreign policy sitting in our harbour

lunarchick - 07:51am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1994 of 1995)
lunarchick@www.com

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/default.htm Description US frustrated as Chinese President leaves for South America [audio] It's back to the future in US China relations,as both sides harden their diplomatic posturing over the American spyplane and its imprisoned crew. But now, with China poised to join the World Trade Organisation, and billions of US dollars invested in the Chinese economy, the Cold War's supposed to be well and truly over. Instead, in the space of a few days, Washington-Beijing relations have slid fast, and if anything the slide is getting faster.

US precedent may hinder spyplane recovery [audio] The United States is taking the high ground on internationalo law and practice when it comes to bringing the spyplane home. But the Pentagon may have some trouble with a few precedents the Americans themselves have created. For instance, in 1976 when a defecting Soviet pilot flew a MIG-25 fighter jet to Japan, American intelligence officials spent nine weeks taking it apart, before sending it back to Moscow in packing crates.

rshowalter - 08:18am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1995 of 1995)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Just think what its cost us to kill 2 million Korean civilians -- in dollars and soldier time - over the years. And think of the lives, in Korea, not only killed, but ruined otherwise. And how much military good did that mass murder (and descecration in an ancestor worshipping country) do us during the Korean War itself ?

And Korea is a tiny and weak country, compared to China or Russia.

The United States, as a country, thinks that indiscriminant murder, including mass murder, is "all right" if we do it. Or so it seems.

And seems to think it is a small thing to threaten to do so.

We should learn better. And stop setting the worst possible example. If we did, the world might not be able to outlaw nuclear weapons -- though I think that might be possible. But it would be hugely safer than it is today.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense