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?

davidding - 11:50pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2945 of 2995)

The missile defense has everything to do with "security", that is, job security for the military industry.

Unfortunately, it won't bring security in any other category, and it will squander a huge amount of public money.

artemis130 - 11:52pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2946 of 2995)
caveat venditor

How many of you NMD fans actually don't think that a functioning missile defense is just a hop, skip and a jump away from the Penta-boys turning it into a first-strike system?

After all, isn't that why it was restricted under the ABM treaty to begin with?

Now I'm just waiting for someone to come back to me with "Yeah, but NATO's just a defensive organization" and other such fairy tails.

artemis130 - 11:54pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2947 of 2995)
caveat venditor

Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz are selling you "defense first" characters a trojan horse and a boondoggle.

Don't trust 'em.

atwnw - 11:55pm May 1, 2001 EST (#2948 of 2995)

I regret to vote for George W. Bush in the election. I am very sorry for everybody. I should even give a formal apology to myself and the United States.

artemis130 - 12:06am May 2, 2001 EST (#2949 of 2995)
caveat venditor

The remilitarization of America.

All we'll need after that is one whacko "rogue" president.

artemis130 - 12:08am May 2, 2001 EST (#2950 of 2995)
caveat venditor

COMMON SENSE, PLEASE.

Common sense? Common sense tells you that the less that holds a military (any military) in check, the more they'll push the envelope. And the last I checked, most of these guys ready to push the envelope believe the best defense is a good offense. Heck, I'm one of 'em, but this ain't no football game.

faridka - 12:30am May 2, 2001 EST (#2951 of 2995)

Most of the critics of Bush's NMD plan argue that the program is either too costly, or technologically not feasible. No one is giving another reason: 1972 treaty signed with the USSR. Bush gives a bad example to other contries by making unilateral decision on breaking a signed treaty. How safe the world is going to be in the future if every leader starts doing the same? The whole thing has nothing to do with the security; it is just a payback to those who helped Bush to get to the White House.

lunarchick - 03:12am May 2, 2001 EST (#2952 of 2995)
lunarchick@www.com

W O O L L Y T H I N K I N G

A consignment of black berrets ordered by and for the USA military:

were sourced in line with the notions of world COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE that is the basis of global trade. Here goods are bought from that place which can produce them at the world's lowest price.

Australia sells high quality wool .. some as fine as silk .. at world 'best prices' .. enabling competitive advantage. Some of this wool is bought by China, made into product, and exported. In this way Aussie wool can be the main component of a product made in China and exported to world destinations.

Where's this leading ?

The USA ordered berrets of high quality at a world best price, the black berrets went into America via Chinese production ... and probably made from Australian wool.

That the American Military are now 'disposing of' these berrets ... and not issuing them ... is a slap in the face for
GATT
Sheep
American Principles of FREE TRADE

Aussie Wool, the world's finest, preferred choice of the world's 4th best known brand name and large retailer - Manchester United!
DNA testing of wool could prove the point!

---

World trade and interdependence is a fact ... take a wheel off the common bicycle .. look at the made-in stamps in relation to the half dozen parts that make-up that wheel.

Next the USA will be separating sea water to remove those molecules that originated as rain over Chinese skies, flowed to the Ocean via Chinese rivers, crossed the Pacific, evapourated from the Ocean, fell as rain over the USA, were captured in USA rivers .. drank by USA citizens, flowed back in the Ocean ....... me'thinks the world is ONE entity ... could an environmentalist please confirm ... !

wjniemi - 05:33am May 2, 2001 EST (#2953 of 2995)

Bush's SDI "plan" is nothing more than half-baked, warmed over Cold War nonsense. The US has been working on this technology since the Raygun years and the results are $45 billion spent, nothing shot down. Elvis said it best... "you ain't never caught a a rabbit and you ain't no friend of mine."

Unilateral abrogation of the ABM treaty is a provocative, illegal move. The best case scenario of this blunder will be withering criticism from the world community; the likely outcome will be strenthening of Russia-China military ties and a renewal of the arms race.

Bush failed to make the case why such a system is needed; he simply made the standard appeals to paranoia and implied that we should suspend rational thought on the subject because the consequences would be so terrible. The reality is that if any "rogue nation" attacked the US it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the attack would be a direct assault with a ballistic missle. A biological attack would be cheap as dirt and it would be very hard to pin down the attacker. Computer systems are easy targets. Even if a nuclear attack was chosen, it would more likely come from a device assembled on site or delivered by a cruise missle than a ballistic missle.

Folks, it's time to start writing to your senators and representatives and let them know what a pile of bunk this is.

Editor, www.StopDubya.com

(42 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense