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?

lunarchick - 06:53pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3193 of 3207)
lunarchick@www.com

To have not been chasing 'rogue' States would have been the start of improved management. Bwsh was on the Whitehouse steps yelling for an enemy to come into view.

If Bwsh is regarded as a President instated as a puppet for the Military Industrial Complex, (his father being active in Carlyle, and, as posted above, many rightwing republicans sitting on Boards of military companies), then in order for them to 'stay rich' they have to keep churning out military eqipment to gain commission. Simple. It's called unethical-business-investment.

It's also called conflict of interest. One would have thought that the 'legalistically minded' USA would immediately understand conflict of interest. And the potential rammifications!!!!!

Is placing orders with the Bush-father and his cronies of yore in conflict with the role of President. Don't people in political office have to declare their interests and connections? Isn't this all up front and out there for the ordinary person to KNOW.

The question raised is ... is Bwsh acting as a President representing the will and needs of the American People, or, is he doing what 'dad' tells him ... that is boost Military Industrial Production to favour the incomes of selected right-wing republicans. Additionally 1/3 of USA spending goes into this area ---- where are the audit figures ? NONE? Few? .. Where does the taxpayer-money set aside for military actually go ?

(see thread via 'world dispatch / conflict of interest) http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee74cb9

lunarchick - 06:56pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3194 of 3207)
lunarchick@www.com

have commitments .. catch the board later ...

rshowalter - 07:09pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3195 of 3207)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Center for Defense Information , a mainstream group, did a closely argued documentary program, with distinguised guests, and important quotes from our current Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

"DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS?" which did have the link http://www.cdi.org/adm/Transcripts/721/ (www.cdi.org is down just now )

"NARRATOR: General Colin Powell, while chairman of the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the military useless-ness of nuclear weapons. According to General Powell, nuclear weapons are "a wasted investment in a military capability that is limited in political or military utility." [23 September 1993]

. . . . .

General COLIN POWELL (10 June 1993, at Harvard University):

" Under agreements that we have negotiated just over the past few years and will come into effect by the end of the decade, we are bringing the number of our nuclear warheads down from over 20,000 when I became chairman four years ago to just over 5000. And today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when that number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place."

It will take hard work, and discipline, to find a way to move the world to that "much better place" -- but I believe that it ought to be possible.

gisterme - 07:44pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3196 of 3207)

lunarchick wrote: "...Chinese people tell me that China regards it's boundary as going 500 miles out into the Pacific, not 12..."

There's a huge legal difference between some people's "regards" and articles of international maritime agreements. Otherwise the president could have just said he "regards" US airspace to extend to within 12 miles of the coast of China and that all those aircraft were in US airspace! Now that would be a real problem solver. He could have demanded an apology form China! At second thought, if maratime rules have no weight, why stop those "regards" at 12 miles from the Chinese coast?...hmmmm. :-)

Lunarchick, it's one thing to utilize leverage based on the truth. It's another to attempt to create leverage based on untruth.

No nation likes to be "surveilled", even if it's being done in an open and technically legal way. No nation likes to be spied on and have its technology, trade secrets or intellectual property stolen.

China is no more innocent of doing those things than any other nation. I would venture that China has virtually no technology or trade secrets and very little intellectual propery that the US or any other developed nation would want to steal thanks to the Chinese "cultural revolution" and inefficient socialized economic system. That's nobody's fault but their own. Developed western nations, due to their efficent economies and open social structures have everything China wants and doesn't have. Would you agree that the motivation for espionage between China and developed western nations is assymetric?

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense