Forums

toolbar Sign Up for NYTimes.com's E-mails



 [F] 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?


Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (3154 previous messages)

benmturk - 01:46pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3155 of 3166)

The emotional argument is unfortunately the weakest. Arguing on the emotional level (that we should disarm cuz it's right) will only work on people who share those values.

I hope when you said the strategic and technical arguments were "dead" you ment proven against NMD because there has been no real solid argument for.

This forum, like so many others I've been to, has come to the point where the ignorant disenting voices have given up. At most they only occasionally bark in Disbelief and now what's left is a group of people who basically agree on an issue. At this point it is crucial that those people do something. If you aren't members or contributors to an organization that acts on these issues you should be. If you aren't writing to senetors or the prez you should be. These forums could serve a very important purpose as a jumping board, people come here share ideas and from here we could get organized or at least share ideas of organizations where we could get active.

I suggest that since we know the argument is dead, use this forum to plug some groups and advocate some action. For example I'm a member of the Green Party, the only party that opposed the missle defense system in the last election. If you join or get on lthe mailing list there are many volunteer and action opportunities.

Has anyone else got a group they want to plug here, now?

I hope this isn't against the NYT rules...

benmturk - 02:14pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3156 of 3166)

Many people on this board are confused about why the US is acting as we are. The trick of it is the US has functioned on a two front foreign policy.

front 1) US against the world.

front 2) US against the american citizens.

Our foreign policy has been consistantly to pursue realpolitic, especially to the benefits of the businesses that appoint our leaders (we all know by now that elections are crooked right?) This policy is generally not accepted at home, with good reason. Why should pursuit of corporate interest cost in security of the american citizen? So the US wages a second continuous war against the american people. It's a propaganda war. Which is made especially easy by the fact that the same businesses that own the government also own the press, or fund the press through advertising.

There is one way to increase security of the US citizens: stop killing other people and giving them reason to hate us. Unfortunately this method is not approved by the businesses cuz they profit from killing other people. They also profit from the pretend security, more military.

Since we're already the source of world animosity dropping all defense now is a suicide. Scaling back our agression and not pursueing first strike nuclear capabilities is a good step towards gradually reducing the demand for US blood.

Mutual Assured Destruction was known as MAD. The NMD is the first step in the MADder version, NUT, Nuclear Utilization Theory. These cold war fools are still running the country. I don't have reason to trust em, and I'm an american. Why should the Russians trust em?

rshowalter - 02:21pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3157 of 3166) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I trust 'em some, at the level of talk. They're dong the best they can, odds are, same as the rest of us. In the world as they understand it. But they need to check their work, and sometimes be checked, also same as the rest of us.

  • ******

    gisterme 5/3/01 1:09pm
    It'll be 3:15 EST before I get the links collected. But establishing a core fact , and having theat fact widely understood, would, I believe make nuclear disarmament easier to sell, and prohibition easier to enforce, as well.

    The fact is this. Many people, including especially young males, fight if they are threatened enough. Or, after they've been injured enough. Even if "rationality" would lead you to expect something else. Cops, drill sergeants, and lot of other people know this.

    For this reasons, nuclear weapons carry an inherent consequence that should deter their use (and therefore make prohibition more effective, even when dealing with madmen, who do sometimes occur.)

    Unless you really can exterminate the social group you damage with a nuclear weapon, and all the people who care deeply about them -- you will have assured your destruction by using a nuclear weapon -- if the people involved can fight back at all. (Japan was a special case. )

    That means that there are no rational uses of nuclear weapons for anything but extermination. The weapons are inherently unstable.

    That makes them bad weapons -- because they produce effects that will hurt those who use them.

    We've been assuming, much too often, that the best level of threat -- the safest, is the maximal threat. It isn't true. Too much threat, too much injury, and people fight back.

    It is a reason to be polite, and a reason not to use nuclear weapons.

    A reason that even most madmen can understand.

    I've more links, and more arguments -- but this fact about threat response is, I believe essential. Back in an hour.

    phequad - 02:27pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3158 of 3166)

    I don't understand what Mr. Bush is saying. correct me if I'm wrong. He wants to break a promise America made to the USSR{Russia} in 1972 so we can spend billions of dollars to build something that might not work. What happened to the integrity he promised to persue as president? Was that just another promise he doesn't feel he needs to live up to?

    rshowalter - 02:28pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3159 of 3166) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

    Good news:

    North Korea Extends Missile Test Moratorium by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-NKorea-EU.html

    More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
     E-mail to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense







  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company