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 - 11:44am May 6, 2001 EST (#3358 of 3366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I posted this on the BBC debate thread:

I'm Robert Showalter, and I've been a main participant in an EXTENSIVE discussion on the New York Times on the Web - Science - MISSILE DEFENSE thread ---- since September 25, 2000 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am -- nine looseleaf notebooks full -- . In that thread, very extensive discussions have gone on with people acting as "stand-ins" for senior officials -- a "Bill Clinton" stand in -- a "Vladimir Putin" stand in, and recently, "stand ins" who may be, or be good stand-ins, for, Bush administration officials.

An extensive indexing of the New York Times -- Missile Defense forum is on a Guardian Talk thread, Psychwar, Casablanca and Terror form posting #154 on http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/158.

Missile Defense, as proposed by the Bush administration, may be well intentioned, and may guide debate in ways that turn out to be useful -- but it is also a technical fraud -- part of a very longstanding pattern of action by a well organized and not completely controlled military industrial complex that the US, and the whole world, needs to bring under better control.

I'd be happy to talk about this. I believe many people who take an interest here might find the thread of interest.

possumdag - 11:44am May 6, 2001 EST (#3359 of 3366)
Possumdag@excite.com

The only thing is, the arms race is just that - a race! Teller pushing hard - just encouraged others to build more 'terror' weapons. Saw 'the cold war' doco TedTurner today re Hydrogen bomb testing. The wind was blowing. 80mls away japanese fishermen were covered - burnt - with ASH from the H-bomb (1000 x stronger than 40's nuclear bombs) ..

A point i make above is that when R&D re MD is done, the 'knowledge' is passed on to opposition - for various psychological reasons - as in coldwar doco in 1950 and ever onwards. So the more development USA makes .. the more 'everybody' knows as secret stuff is leaked to opposition.

possumdag - 11:46am May 6, 2001 EST (#3360 of 3366)
Possumdag@excite.com

Do we have a 'hot link' into the BBC debate ...

possumdag - 11:50am May 6, 2001 EST (#3361 of 3366)
Possumdag@excite.com

A critism of USA just made is : failure of USA to fund organisations (including UN) that can be used to do good things in a wanting world.

rshowalter - 12:08pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3362 of 3366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/default.stm

rshowalter - 12:24pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3363 of 3366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Friday, 7 July, 2000, 09:51 GMT 10:51 UK http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/monitoring/media_reports/newsid_823000/823196.stm

Text of scientists' anti-missile letter

The full text of the letter from the Federation of American Scientists to President Clinton urging that the National Missile Defence system be abandoned . . . . .

Dear Mr President:

We urge you not to make the decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system during the remaining months of your administration.

The system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests.

We and other independent scientists have long argued that anti-ballistic missile systems, particularly those attempting to intercept re-entry vehicles in space, will inevitably lose in an arms race of improvements to offensive missiles.

North Korea has taken dramatic steps toward reconciliation with South Korea. Other dangerous states will arise. But what would such a state gain by attacking the United States except its own destruction?

While the benefits of the proposed anti-ballistic missile system are dubious, the dangers created by a decision to deploy are clear.

Arms race

It would be difficult to persuade Russia or China that the United States is wasting tens of billions of dollars on an ineffective missile system against small states that are unlikely to launch a missile attack on the US.

The Russians and Chinese must therefore conclude that the presently planned system is a stage in developing a bigger system directed against them.

They may respond by restarting an arms race in ballistic missiles and having missiles in a dangerous "launch-on-warning" mode.

Even if the next planned test of the proposed anti-ballistic missile system works as planned, any movement toward deployment would be premature, wasteful and dangerous.

Respectfully,

Dr Hans Bethe

On behalf of the Federation of American Scientists

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense