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?

fox2one - 08:50pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2935 of 2939)

"President Bush announced his plans today for a missile defense system at the National Defense University in Washington."

The story with his "Smugness" -- God, what a look --no wonder the world looks down on the US of A!

The story: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/world/01CND-PREXY.html

rshowalter - 09:07pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2936 of 2939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm

I believe Eisenhower would have been much more concerned than he was (and he was VERY concerned) had he forseen more of the future.

I feel that the things I am doing now are things Eisenhower would have approved of. I've thought so a long time. I ask a question of the form

What would __________ do in this particular situation?

pretty often. It is a sort of a checklist. One of the blanks I fill in, and have for years, is Eisenhower. (Edison, J.D.Rockefeller Sr., Menken, and a number of other people are also on my list.)

Eisenhower was not a flawless man. He was a cold eyed, analytical killer when he had to be. But he was a very perceptive, tough, graceful negotiator, as well.

He worked with Kurt LeMay, one of the monsters of all time, and used him as a tool.

But Eisenhower was a man with a sense of proportion, whenever he could be.

Within his limitations Eisenhower had a great respect for fact, and a sense of what was worth defending about the United States.

He also knew how ugly the consequences of mistakes could be, and checked his work as best he could.

If the people in charge of military matters today thought more about what was worth defending about America, the world would be both a safer and cleaner place.

Maybe things are getting better. At least, some things are "off top dead center" so that, along with the possibility of things getting worse, there is at least the possibility of improvement, too.

It is a time for care, and for staying awake.

marlynn0 - 09:49pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2937 of 2939)

George W. Bush's actions frighten me--I see him moving toward increasing tensions in the world in order to make the US military feel that they have a purpose as he promised in his campaign speeches. Certainly $$$ is involved here as well--paybacks to contractors, weapons manufacturers, etc. The world is in danger.

rshowalter - 10:00pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2938 of 2939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I found a great deal to like and admire in President Bush's speech, excerpted in

In Bush's Words: 'Substantial Advantages of Intercepting Missiles Early' http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/world/02TEXT.html?pagewanted=all

I might have chosen another headline for the speech.

At the level of national leadership, Bush used his "bully pulpit" to send a simple, essential message to Americans.

. Nuclear weapons are terrible.

- The past nuclear policies were terrible -- necessary, but terrible in human terms .... "

- AND NOW THERE IS A CHANCE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THESE POLICIES -- AND TOWARD A SAFER WORLD.

George Bush didn't commit himself to many specifics - and should not have done so.

I'm glad he didn't.

But I feel that the stance was very good indeed.

Nuclear weapons are terrible -- they are a threat that we, as a nation, in coordination with the realities of the whole world, must deal with, and minimize as best we can.

It seems to me that, just now, he could hardly have sent a better message.

At the level of substance, he has nothing at the level of substance for missile defense, and claims but little more than nothing now in place.

That's fair enough.

The '72 treaty was based on a cruel bluff in any case.

I've raised questions that I feel are essential, and entirely fair, about the past. And the past counts -- the "past" cannot be a "constructed lie" if people are to make good decisions.

Nor can consequences be entirely evaded.

But it is the future we hope for.

In many ways, Bush set a responsible and constructive tone --- as he leads America into our future.

I wouldn't qualify as a Bush "fan." But for this limited time, in this specific context, I say

" Bravo. "

rshowalter - 10:02pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2939 of 2939)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Bush sent another message --- and I'm very glad he did.

He sent the message to Americans that, in some parts of the world, America is hated. Bitterly hated.

He didn't say why. He didn't say there might be reasons for the hatred.

But he did communicate the fact.

If that fact became widely understood in America, more reasonable actions would be possible.

Until that fact is known, in at least a little detail, Americans cannot be asked to deal with the reasons for a hatred that they do not even know exists.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense