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?

scootair - 11:55am May 1, 2001 EST (#2884 of 2890)

Bush proposes to throw money at a weapon system that has consistently failed highly contrived, unrealistic tests. According to independent experts (most notably Ted Postal from MIT) it is highly dubious that it will ever be able to accompolish it's stated mission.

In the Times yesterday, an Administration source stated that it's not important that it be an "air tight" defense against even a small attack (unless you are on the receiving end of it) , only that it put doubts in mind of a potential agressor.

I've never heard such a crock of dung. They propose spending what will doubtlesly be hundreds of BILLIONS (the way the Pentagon does businees) of tax dollars over the coming decades. The truth is, this is all about money. Dick Cheney was on the board of TRW (big Star Wars contractor), his wife Lynne is on the board of Lockheed Martin, Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley's Washington law firm represents Lockheed Martin and Sec Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been a Star Wars industry darling since he invented the N Korean missile threat as leader of the congressionally mandated Rumsfeld Commission.

These operatives for the weapons industry will all be safely ensconced back in the boardrooms of their benefactors in 4-8 years enjoying the lagress of the massive corporate gravey train that they are about to start rolling. The rest of us will be stuck with the 6,000 plus nuclear warheads apiece that the US and Russia currently have, an arms race in SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan), and a modern Marginot Line that will do nothing to stop the most likely threat-a nuclear or biological weapon smuggled in by boat, plane, train or backpack.

go to www.peace-action to help stop this dangerous boondoggle

applez0 - 12:08pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2885 of 2890)

BTW, it is 'Maginot' Line - and yes, NMD will be as expensive and useless as that predecessor. :)

rshowalter - 12:25pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2886 of 2890)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But perhaps, as a negotiating chip -- still useful -- in that sense "destabilization" (of logical structures) might be useful.

Remember, the budget being proposed isn't, in itself, out of line. --

And the problems that, in the nature of things, have to be solved for missile defense, also need to be solved for other weapons systems.

And for all kinds of other control systems.

Missile defense approaches, even though they may never shoot down a missile, still may make it practical for the world to defend itself from the ultimate outside threat -- an asteroid that could end human life on earth, even if we don't blunder into doing that ourselves.

What's needed is solutions to problems we have NOW.

Along with reasonable accomodations for the future.

I don't think that missile defense, in itself, will be at all helpful.

But dialog concerning missile defense may be -- because an orderly, step by step, focused examination of our reasons for fear, and our means of deterrance, are likely to show, again and again, that we can work things out more rationally than we have.

rshowalter - 12:31pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2887 of 2890)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I feel that we need to move away from Dr. Stragelove "solutions" -- and toward the kinds of focused, disciplined, graceful solutions that ordinary people so often craft in their own lives -- the sorts of solutions that make room for life -- the kinds that another very tough character, Mary Poppins , might approve of.

Something I've always liked about the movie Mary Poppins is that the heroine moves into a ugly mess. The ugliness is realistically portrayed. With some steadfastness, and some grace, she uses very specific knowledge of specific people and situations. There's the occasional coercive act or credible threat, but always she is proportionate, and graceful outcomes are arranged as well. Things are worked out to a higher level of grace and practicality than existed in the household before, though nobody loses their basic weaknesses and flaws.

We've had a lot of Dr. Strangelove in our international arrangements. Maybe we can't do away with all of it, though I think we can.

But we could use some of the Mary Poppins virtues, too.

peacekeeper1a - 12:49pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2888 of 2890)

From American perspective, I think, U.S is trying to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Whether United states' role can be kept after 15-20 years time is still cloudy somehow. Especially, Russia is no longer 'superpower' as it has been before, (even before,it has been arguable that if it has been a superpower). For United States, the NMD System is likely to be 'A Strategic Advancement' in foreseeable future. Predictably, not in playing with the 'rogue states or states of national concern', but in playing with the strategic rivals of the United States, most probably China. But for United States, any Missile Defence System has to be built on the mutual agreement between Russia and U.S. Once Russia and U.S set up such kind of reconciliation/agreement, no country, esp. China has not got diplomatic or political motivation to oppose significantly so far.

guytarget - 01:18pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2889 of 2890)

What a great phone call that would have been:

BUSH: "Uhhh yeah hello Vladimir?"

PUTIN: "Yes."

BUSH: "Yeah we want to build a missle defense system"

PUTIN: "Really? Well what is your defense made up of?"

BUSH: "Uhhhhhh missles. Oh Oh yeah and these cool space lasers."

I think someone needs to sit Bush and his friends down in the sandbox, or give them a ball to play with, or something. It's obvious that there just looking for toys. Just give them some toys that won't kill us all. Is that too much to ask?

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense