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?

rshowalter - 01:45pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3001 of 3009)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Acknowledging the past would be a lot safer, and much better, than a "Star Wars" that can't be made to work.

If we made peace, the rest of the world could, too.

rshowalter - 01:51pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3002 of 3009)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I have a lot of supporting material for what I've just said, on this thread, and on the Guardian. It will take me a while to gather it. I've been saying the same things, continuously, often under pressure, for a long time.

benmturk - 02:04pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3003 of 3009)

Missle defense will not work, if it does, it's not good for the US defense or for world peace.

Missle defense is a kickback to the defense industries that paid to put bush in office. Bush is willing to risk security, peace and world stability to pay these contributors back.

The inevitable result of instituting an even unsuccessful missle defense system is nuclear proliferation. In today's world nobody is going to bomb the US unless they are on a suicide mission. Even Saddam, Kim, and the ayatolla, they risk loosing their country, their source of power, they won't do it. The only people who would do it would be extremist suicide bombers, who exist in plenty but do not thank heavens have nuclear weapons, yet.

The expanded proliferation the NMD would create would be more likely to put nuclear warheads in the hands of the only people mad enough to use them. These people would not have ballistic missles, they'd have suitcase bombs, NMD wouldn't be able to stop them.

So Bush's program creates a threat and fails to protect against this threat. Doesn't sound like defense to me.

rshowalter - 02:14pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3004 of 3009)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is crazy -- we should tone down the threats, and the posturing.

It seems to me that G.W. Bush may understand that.

But to make de-escalation of threat possible, to make trust possible

we have to admit what we've done.

In every stage of the nuclear arms talks, the Russians insisted, desperately, passionately, on the need for an objective acounting of the history of how the conflict happened.

They were right. For peace, that's needed.

We were the agressors. We've won.

We should make peace.

The Soviet Union did not fall by accident.

And a "let's not look back -- this is nobody's fault" position isn't humanly sustainable here.

If we set the record straight, not necessarily apologizing, but getting things so that everybody was "reading off the same page" -- peace, at least at the level of elimination of nuclear threats, would, with hard work to be expected, fall into place.

disbelief1 - 02:18pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3005 of 3009)

Of course the Times "what the world thinks" should have been relabeled for accuracy, "what the left thinks...what the socialists think..what people like the TIMES think..." Cute, a tactic like dear little "Jamie" ,lately sokesman for the Deparment of State's Albright, tried to plant, quoting leftist journalists as "Europe". Bush Bush Powell Cheney and Rumsfeld don't have a clue, let alone depth and experience like Clinton and his idiot cabinet, right? From the Clinton administraion that had no foreign policy except America is always wrong...and Israel or anything socialist or communist is always right. And shriek shriek the whole Clinton brillant long term foreign policy plan ( by likes of Berger, Albright and Cohen, that brilliant experienced trio) is gonna be ruined! Amateur hour is being surplanted by real professionals who care for the country more than a continual campaign and socialism. Be glad.

rshowalter - 02:22pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3006 of 3009)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Facts can get established, if checking is permitted -- and with the internet, it isn't as hard as it used to be.

To call The New York Times "leftist" is crazy.

It is establishment-elitist, and you may not like that -- but leftist, it isn't.

Facts can be checked, and ranting like yours disbelief , is of only limited effect, when enough people are watching.

artemis130 - 02:47pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3007 of 3009)
caveat venditor

Because of NMD, China will have 1000 ICBMs by the end of the decade, Russia will MRV 20 warheads on every Topol M and a new fatwah will be issued every month, calling for the "faithful" to find a chink in the armor, even before it's been forged.

There's your "security for you.

wrcooper - 02:49pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3008 of 3009)
The whole is a riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt [and] uncertainty...appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny....But such is the frailty of human reason. --David Hume

Nothing has changed in BMD technology that would increase confidence in its feasibility. The problems involved in distinguishing warheads from decoys are too formidable presently. A well-orchestrated attack using MIRVs with multiple decoys could easily overwhelm any defense system. This is clearly a sop to the DOD and the MIC.

A lone terrorist with a small nuke or a phial of anthrax in a knapsack poses a far greater threat to the security of the U.S. than rogue nations equipped with a dozen ICBMs.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense