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?

anthonyjrusso1 - 10:58pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3568 of 3595)

Ballistic missile defense is the Orwellian weapon: defense is offense. If we had a BMD that worked that would give us a first strike capability. When Governor Bush talks about BMD he is implicitly threatening every nation. Why doesn't someone clue him in? It is sickening having a preppie wedged into office by a judicial coup running around talking like this and endangering the world. God help us. We surely need it.Call forth the forces for peace!

possumdag - 11:11pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3569 of 3595)
Possumdag@excite.com

.

carlw6 - 11:25pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3570 of 3595)

I have but one simple question: Are we better off with a missle defense system or no missle defense at all? Carl S. Wittekind Lt.Col. USAF Ret. cwflyboy@erinet.com

almarst-2001 - 11:40pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3571 of 3595)

gisterme 5/8/01 9:23pm

I did not want to get down to details on any particular case discussed, particularelly since there are separate NYT forums for most of those anyway.

However, as an exercise, let's look at the seemingly "least contoroversial" one - the Iraq.

It may not be a common knowlege, but Iraq never recognized Kuwait - the product of the British Empire deliberate manipulation of its colonized lands to ensure the perpetual conflict. Just look at almost any "hot spot" in the world.

It may not be a common knowlege, but Iraq was the most socio-economically advanced and politically progressive Arab country. And I accept it being a Jewish and knowing the Saddam's view on Israel.

The Iraq's road to prosperity was undermined first and formost by its war with Iran. And all circumstantial evidence and a common sense tells me this war was "designed" not in Bagdad. Some day I expect we will learn more about it.

Before Gulf War, Saddam was not the enemy of the Humanity and Iraq's crimies against Kurds was not an issue. Moreover, most western "democracies" actively supported Saddam and helped developing those wearpons of mass destruction, they starve the Iraq's children for today.

If one remembers the the events just prior to Gulf War, there was a concentration of Iraq's army on a border, publically dismissed by the US government as an empty tread. And there was a great surprise in Iraq when their conquest was suddenly declared as a criminal aggression. Clearly Saddam expected a different reaction from the West. My personal assumption is the US and GB decided to kill more then one bird with one shoot - eliminate the growing local dominant, establish the permanent military presence in the Gulf as a "protection" force and increase influence on their allies and promote the market for their military equipment.

It may not be a common knowlege, but "attrocities" attributed to Iraq's occupation forces where found to be a lies and propaganda, similar to what happend later in Kosovo when CIA presented their satelite pictures of "fields of death" of tens of thousends of Albanians coupled with some unidentified "witneses" accounts.

During the war, primary targets became the Iraq's water purification facilities - a clear act of the war crime, particularely taking in account the fact that Iraq has almost no natural water resources. This act along is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousends civilians, mostly sick, elderly and children. By many accounts - half a millin of chidren so far. What do you need a nuclear bomb for?

If there where acts of brutality during this war, they where commited by US military during the Irq's withdrowal. So much so, some people like MacVain became mentally unstable while buldosering live Iraq's solders into the mass grave. Some used the occusion as a target-fire practice on the "road of death" while others burned the retreating under the white flag columns from the air. No wonder the US is not signing the establishment of the International Crime tribunal.

The story continues to this day with sunctions and almost daily bombing in clear violation of international law. But I would stop here, unless there is an interest to continue.

almarst-2001 - 11:45pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3572 of 3595)

carlw6 5/8/01 11:25pm

"Are we better off with a missle defense system or no missle defense at all?"

And the simple answer would be: Some;)

Don't forget the Big $ to military-industrial complex and the infinite ego of some politicans dreaming of ruling the World.

241590156a - 11:48pm May 8, 2001 EST (#3573 of 3595)

It takes two to tangle!!!

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense