Forums

toolbar



 [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 (10059 previous messages)

rshowalter - 07:38pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10060 of 10064) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Gisterme , I want to take the rest of the night off, to think how to respond to your postings. There are sensitivities, and differences of opinion, that seem rather surprising, but sensitive, too. Am I wrong that you've been close, and remain close, to decisions about the use of military force in general, and nuclear weapons specifically? Your postings imply that. That worries me a little.

Before signing out, I'd like to make a few points.

I seems to me that the questions:

" who are you writing for, and what are you trying to accomplish? "

are especially good questions in light of your recent posts.

MD10036 rshowalter 10/1/01 11:16am responded to postings from you, that asked for specific things to check. I provided them, and asked

can you, or gisterme , or anyone else, point to responses, cited in MD9896 rshowalter 9/29/01 7:44am that are not specific enough to check and tell me why they are not?

Perhaps there are examples where I haven't been specific enough, but in context, I think I've been specific enough for checking in a lot of places. Help me see where I haven't been specific enough, could you?

Given the mistakes on missile defense, I'd expected a response. When you posted, it seemed to me to be diversionary and defamatory, rather than on point - - and I responded sincerely, but untactfully. Given the importance of substance , could you respond? Is there any reason at all to think that lasar weapons can make military sense?

I have some concerns that I expressed in MD4671_4675 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:13pm that might interest someone - I'm posting them on that off chance.

There's also a series of links, on the questions of where the thread's been, and what I've been trying to accomplish, in MD8344 rshowalter 9/2/01 5:03pm . . that seem worth posting. Not high priority, perhaps, but the link might be of interest to someone

For myself, it seems that a good deal has been accomplished on this forum, and that your reponse, which clarifies a good deal, may lead to constructive consequences.

But again, gisterme , I want to take the rest of the night off, to think how to respond to your postings. There are sensitivities, and differences of opinion, that seem rather surprising, but sensitive, too.

Almarst , I've been rereading a lot of postings today, and in my opinion you've posted some very fine ones.

I'd like to close with a poem: "The Nice" by Peter Goldsworthy. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/231

Please pardon me if I haven't been.

possumdag - 08:56pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10061 of 10064)
Possumdag@excite.com


gisterme - 09:25pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10062 of 10064)

almarst wrote ( almarst-2001 10/2/01 5:22pm ):

"You either did not understand my position and analysis or intentionally make a mokary of.

First let me say that I'm not intending to mock you almarst and I'm sorry that I let Robert suck you into my comments about his...stuff. You usually do make a lot more sense than he does eventhough I may disagree with much of what you say.

"...1. The socio-economic system usually reflects the historical reality and the cultural heritage of a nation for its period.

Right. No beef about that.

"...Unless (it is) imposed and supported by a foreign power by military, political or quasi-legal economic means like bribary of a corrupted local power structure.

Right again. Such imposition is exactly what's been unsucessfuly tried in Afghanistan for centuries...British, Russians and now Taliban. The Russians bombed them back to the stone age and now the Taliban have them stuck in the eleventh century. Same thing is true with any evil dictator who comes to power. History has shown that the longer such exist, the more innocent blood that gets spilled.

"...2. Unless imposed by a foreign power, and as long as it does not treatenes other nations as defined by UN resolutions and established international law, it is up to those nations to develop as they see the best..."

Tyrants and armies of occuption tend to have little regard for UN resolutions, international law or any other conventions. That's a historical fact as well. Also people who are being driven from their homes and murdered don't think much of such idealistic bodies.

"...3. Any nation that attempts to impose its socio-economic system upon others effectively commits the criminal aggression, even for the best of intentions..."

President Putin pointed out in his speech yesterday that the USSR learned that the hard way and therefore no longer exists. He said it's time for everybody to realize that the Cold War is over and that the Cold War mentality must be abandoned in both Russia and the West. I certainly can't disagree with that.

(continued)

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Post Message
 Email 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