![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (2985 previous messages)
bacchante
- 12:35pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2986
of 2997)
I think a lot of the diplomatic problems arising from this sort
of speach have to do with the attitude Bush is presenting to the
rest of the world: "We're the United States, the most powerful
nation in the world. We don't care what you think, or what treaties
you have with us. We will do what we like, and if you don't like it,
we can blow your country to smithereens."
This is of course isn't actually possible because everyone knows
missile defense doesn't actually work, but it shows how Bush thinks
about foreign policy. He took a belligerent stance towards China
during the spy plane crisis, and now he is again using military
power to force other countries to agree with us.
Avoiding an arms race? From what I understand, Bush would be
happy to provoke an arms race to allow an increase in military
spending (read "large government payments to Lockheed"). It's
actually a concept Bush Sr used: If the economy is flagging, start a
war!
I have heard many people on this forum slam missile defense, and
rightly so. What I'd like to see if for someone who agrees with
missile defense to present their case, so I can see why someone
might possibly think this is a good idea.
rshowalter
- 12:39pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2987
of 2997) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I think it is, in many decisive spots, a big lie.
Reinforced by a fiction:
2738: rshowalter
4/29/01 6:17pm
No matter how nice the idea of Star Wars
might seem, as James Dao set it out in Please Do Not Disturb us
With Bombs ( Week in Review , p 18 Feb 11, 2001) , the fact is
that it is only a false promise.
Based, so far as I'm able to find out, on frauds, some of very
long standing.
I believe that this thread may be making a contribution to making
those frauds clear for what they are -- because there's good reason
to believe this thread is being read by responsible people, and
points that, if wrong, one would expect to be contested are not
being contested. rshowalter
4/25/01 6:21pm
You're right that it would be good if the points
were contested.
Eventually, however, the silence itself may begin to speak
loudly.
dccougar
- 12:43pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2988
of 2997)
This certainly seems to be SDI all over again. The idea of a
national missile defense shield was idiotic then, and it is even
more idiotic now. (I guess such things are to be expected when the
country elects--er, the courts appoint a village idiot to be
president of the United States.
I haven't read through all the previous postings to this board.
Has ANYONE expressed the feeling that this is a good idea?
What in the world is George W's justification for this vastly
expensive and ultimately ineffectual "defense" program?
rshowalter
- 12:45pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2989
of 2997)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
No one has given any reasons, except in the most general
"wouldn't this be nice" sense.
*********
md 2602 : rshowalter
4/25/01 6:21pm
md 2603: rshowalter
4/25/01 6:33pm
" At the system level, missile defense has always
been, and is now, "as devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur."
" The only explanation I can see, and one that
seems consistent with a great deal, is that it is being sold so
hard because it is a lie. A lie that people in power are willing
to defend at all costs (including the cost of more fraud, and
continued treason.) Perhaps I'm wrong about all this. That could
be discussed. But how easy would this discussion be for goverment
servants with much of their net worth, or their hopes for money in
the future, tied to speculative finance?
I might also wonder: How easy are these questions
for the specialists in speculative finance who specialize in
military-industrial involvements, but whose stock-in-trade is
their integrity, their judgement, and their status?
A problem is that the deception is so gross, so pervasive, and of
such longstanding, that people can't believe it has happened and is
happening.
rshowalter
- 12:47pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2990
of 2997)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
It may take a while to sink in. Of course, it has already.
A problem with press usages is that complicated questions of this
sort, once they're past the "spin cycle" -- seem never close. The
internet, in forums like this, makes a contribtion here.
juddrox
- 12:51pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2991
of 2997)
Why is Missile Defense Technology even an issue?
IT DOES NOT WORK.
rshowalter
- 12:56pm May 2, 2001 EST (#2992
of 2997)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Because "big lies" have been allowed to work, for too
long, in American politics.
People make a false distinction -- they don't want too much
"nailed down: -- and they reason from negotiation experience.
"Hard positions" make negotiations difficult -- but
"hard facts" arranged so that all concerned are "reading
from the same page" make fair and stable negotiations
possible.
rshowalter
4/9/01 1:37pm
rshowalter
4/9/01 1:42pm
rshowalter
4/9/01 1:44pm
rshowalter
4/9/01 2:28pm
  (5
following messages)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
