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?

possumdag - 08:28pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2739 of 2746)
Possumdag@excite.com

That the 'business' sector of the USA put Bwsh into Casa-blanca is interesting ...

Wonder if they foresaw the growling puppy standing at the gates woofing after rogue states and nations ... the Chinese set out to whip that puppy and in business terms they did!

Call an accountant on this one:
The USA plane was damaged,
China got unbelievable publicity that could not be bought,
the USA got unbelievably bad publicity that sank in in the international competitive stakes,
the Chinese got a plane to spend a month with taking every qualitative and quantiative measurement they cared to take and
soon their Gucci-Spy replica will be sailing the skies,

On world trade the sourcing of goods can be done from many countries
As the integrity of the USA plummets
Buyers may turn to alternative sources
Ignoring the USA
The Kyoto debarcle
has soured the taste for USA products
through the 'thinking' world
The young consumer particularly is disgusted with Bwsh
The digital era is about capturing the demographic of the marketed-to mind
In these stakes the Empire is shrinking
-has shrunk
gaining one new customer for a product is an accountable cost
The B-USA-H has lost $millions-worth of
minds, hearts, markets
"Just like that"
"Spit-Spat"
"Just like that"

So how does the Business Right Wing enjoy being a dumb looser
Or is there a time lag of a year before this obvious report gets researched and issued?!?

I think the 'world' might be enjoying their competivite advantages of having a barking-bwsh in the BwhiteHouse!

rlgardner01 - 10:10pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2740 of 2746)

To rshowalter: Sorry, I'd love to argue with you about this, but we're on the same side. I received a 60-page pamphlet advocating the immediate deployment of Star Wars way back in 1983. I read it, thought it was an incredibly stupid idea and still do. My question is: How will the Star Wars advocates deal with this article seeing as they've had almost 40 years to come up with a response? My research uncovered the fact that such a response was likely way back in 1967 and very likely well before that.

rshowalter - 10:22pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2741 of 2746)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Bush Team Vows to Speed Up Work on Missile Shield by MICHAEL R. GORDON with STEVEN LEE MYERS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/30/world/30MISS.html?pagewanted=all

Note the phrase "low standard."

Also note the dollar expenditures, as a proportion of our defense budget.

rshowalter - 10:32pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2742 of 2746)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In 1983, there was more hope -- because the problems hadn't struck out so many people, and the system had not become so corrupt.

We are dealing with a fraud here, and with psychopathology, as well.

Also deception. -- Unless the NYT story above has decimal point errors, no engineer, anywhere in the government, thinks missile defense is going to work in any forseeable future.

I'll continue to think that until a real engineer, with something tangible, like a P.E. ticket to put at risk, comes forward and says --

"this is a reasonable technical proposal."

I have a PE ticket to risk. Anybody want to go after it, on the basis of anything I've said on this thread?

If so, there could be an interesting dialog.

The Bush administration isn't even wasting much money in the proposal -- they are "saving face," setting funding levels so low (compare to Osprey) that they can horsetrade their program into being in Congress. But they are putting the whole world at risk doing so.

For a bluff.

It is a "big lie."

rshowalter - 10:49pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2743 of 2746)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If the United States has become the "tyrant lizard collossus of nations" it is a sad and shameful thing. Unfortunately, the term fits too well rshowalter 4/8/01 8:22am

One could read on -- for notes about press freedom, perhaps with an uncheckable attribution that is in error (though perhaps not).

bernardo - 11:10pm Apr 29, 2001 EST (#2744 of 2746)

However one may care to describe W himself, to refer to the US as a puppy whining at the gates misses the point entirely. We are not asking the rest of the world anything -- we are telling them what we are going to do whether they like it or not. As the cover story in this month's Atlantic Monthly so succintly puts it " Russia is Finished". It is with no hesitation that we now inform the Red Bear that we will simply ignore a treaty which no longer suits our purposes.

And as for China they may have our plane but we have plenty more. Just as they may have dozens of nuclear weapons where as we thousands.

Of course this beligerence doesn't change the fact that the premise of need for as well as the promised effective of the NMD is completey spurious.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense