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 - 08:19pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3467 of 3480)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (3)

876: almarstel2001 3/8/01 10:06am ..... 877: almarstel2001 3/8/01 10:10am
878: almarstel2001 3/8/01 10:15am ..... 879: almarstel2001 3/8/01 10:18am
880: almarstel2001 3/8/01 10:25am
.

892: almarstel2001 3/9/01 12:48pm and 894: almarstel2001 3/9/01 2:53pm ... were key postings, repeated here:

" Given the current world disbalance of conventional power, the nuclear weapons are the only financially feasible answer of most countries against overwhelming US conventional military. There is no fool who would not understand that. And that is precisely the aim of AMD to remove the last layer of protection from anyone who may potentially come at odds with US policies."

" As long as some countries are villing to enforce their will on others using the military force - and US is one of the first among them, there will be need for a small country to defend itself against overhelming US conventional power. It is up to US and other great powers to demonstrate their absolute rejection of all military means against others except for the pure self-defence. Untill then, how can we blaim others who not only have to fight the terrorists (frequently armed and supported by those great powers and again, primerely US), they also have to defend themselv against those same powers commiting the open aggression like we have seen in Yugoslavia.

" What option do they have other then capitulation before US pressure or having the Nukes to prevent such aggression?

Dawn and I and almarstel2001 all worked hard to get from this statement, which might have been accepted as an impasse, and to see if conditions could be set out under which nuclear disarmament might be possible.

899: almarstel2001 3/9/01 4:59pm ..... 909: almarst-2001 3/10/01 8:39pm
910: almarst-2001 3/10/01 8:52pm ..... 911: almarst-2001 3/10/01 8:56pm
912: almarst-2001 3/10/01 9:12pm ..... 914: almarst-2001 3/10/01 10:37pm
915: almarst-2001 3/10/01 10:49pm ...... 923: almarst-2001 3/11/01 2:01pm
924: almarst-2001 3/11/01 3:58pm ..... 929: almarst-2001 3/11/01 5:13pm
932: almarst-2001 3/11/01 5:26pm ..... 933: almarst-2001 3/11/01 5:33pm
936: almarst-2001 3/11/01 6:03pm ..... 949: almarstel2001 3/12/01 11:07am
950: almarstel2001 3/12/01 11:36am ..... 952: almarstel2001 3/12/01 1:03pm asks a key question:

" Eventually it all comes down to the basic - the role the America wants to play as the only and ultimate superpower, the means and tools by which this role may be fulfilled and, most importantly - WHO WILL BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS POLICY?

I responded in 953 as follows:

"It seems to me that, if FACTS were established, the US military rationale would be indefensible. It would have to cha

possumdag - 08:20pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3468 of 3480)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI said "the USSR was continuing to OCCUPY EASTERN EUROPE which is what the war was about? " I thought the war was about Hitler - occupying/not occupying - all of Europe.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense