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 - 08:18pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3465 of 3480)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (2)

856: almarstel2001 3/7/01 3:59pm ..... 857: almarstel2001 3/7/01 4:08pm
861: almarstel2001 3/7/01 6:32pm ..... 865+866: almarstel2001 3/7/01 10:15pm .. includes:

" Why do I believe it is very dangerows for the World to end up with absolute monopoly of military power in face of US? . . . . . The US administrations had shown times after times their disrespect to international law, disregard to the truth, brutality and villingness to commit aggressions against other countries in a name of so called "national interests". Those interests never came under any serious scruteny by so called "free press" for the reasons beiong my understanding except some hidden financial pressures from the "military-industrial complex", including such companies as GE and a fear to be seen as "unpatriotic" once US troops are commited by a President. Same seems to hold true for US Cogress and Senate.

" The recent disinformation, propaganda, lies, support for terrorists and mafia organisations such as KLA and criminal coward bombing compain over Kosovo demonstrated this pattern clearer then ever before.

" Why whould any country on Earth feel safe in this situation? And if country feels tratened, it may indeed commit suicidal acts of violence.

.. . . . . . .

" The sence of involunerbility which may tempt a shameless US president such as Clinton to commit a criminal acts of aggression abroad to divert attention from his sexual affears at home may bring some day a true catastrophy to this nation, not to mention the shame and isolation. "

gisterme - 08:19pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3466 of 3480)

rshowalter wrote: "...We were the agressor in the Cold War -- again and again and again..."

The NATO was aggressive in the cold war all right, Robert; but I hate to rain on your parade. What it was aggressive about was getting to USSR to stop OCCUPYING EASTERN EUROPE. It was diligent in its efforts to set those nations free to determine their own affairs. What's the matter with that?

You make it abundantly clear that you think it's no big deal that the USSR occupied and installed brutal dictatorships in those Eastern European nations. I guess there's not much more I can say if you think that was okay. Just another point we can agree to disagree on, right, Robert?

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense