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?

rshowalter - 12:15pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2320 of 2323)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

# 1793 rshowalter 3/30/01 2:22pm
#1795 rshowalter 3/30/01 2:34pm

#1796 rshowalter 3/30/01 3:18pm cites 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 project. . . . .

" 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 Act.

" 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, rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am 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.

almarst-2001 - 01:43pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2321 of 2323)

Robert,

Sorry if I touched a nerve on T.F. May be I am a too harsh on him. At least he is not likely to be evil-minded. Just, in my view, too light-minded.

We spent some time talking about opennes and truth as some of essential ingradients in a conflict's prevention. And we seems to completely aggree on this.

We also discussed the point raised by T.F. on inherited inability of non-democracies to acknowlege the past mistakes and crimes. And i questioned the validity of this statement based on many examples, including the US. The dominating superpower triumfing the victory of its ideas all over the world. If there can be a country which should not fear to acnowlege its past mistakes - the US must be the first.

And here is the story.

Yerstaday I heard a pretty well prepeared Public Radio discussion on Cuban Crisis. It took 40 years to open this pretty dark page to the root of the US policy toward Cuba. However, even this acknowlegement did little if at all to change the overall US media rethoric or US policy. Even today, 40 years later!

And even more importantly, it does not explain what was done in US to prevent such a wide public deception and abuse of power, which paved the way to the brink of nuclear War.

Indeed, is it any different today then it was then?

What conclusion can one get from this observation?

Additionally, and it is strictly my personal view, the disclosed information on those 40 years old events still are not complete. I personally believe there was an influence of American mafia bosses on JFK, demanding the payback for securing his election. And the Cuba, where the mafia lost a very substantial investments after the nazionalization, would just be such. By examining those events, it was clear the JFK tried to keep the official US profile during the Bay of Pigs operation as low as possible. There was no ideological confrontation or anti-communist rethoric. Why not then? And why still now?

almarst-2001 - 02:07pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2322 of 2323)

China, Chechnya, Cuba in UN human rights spotlight - http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010418/world/afp/China__Chechnya__Cuba_in_UN_human_rights_spotlight.html

"The United States has been working hard in its perennial battle to see Beijing condemned."

Are those the worst Human Rigts abusers of the World today?

Apparently as US sees it, the Arabic Oil Kingdoms or the Turkey have a better Human Rights record then China or Cuba? Or are they just a "strategically importand friends"?

The NATO bombing of souvereign state civilians using clustered bombs and DU was never condemned either. and is situation in Israel or Indonesia better the Kosovo or Chechnia?

A case of "dirty glasses" or DIRTY NATURE?

rshowalter - 02:07pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2323 of 2323)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Let me try, in the next hour or a little more, to get you a good answer, that I can regard as balanced. People are, not to overstate at all, less than ideal here - and it is both tragic and dangerous.

It seems to me that some changes for the better ought to be possible, even with limitations and difficulties as they are.

I appreciate your comment very much.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense