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?

jla_117 - 01:47am May 9, 2001 EST (#3583 of 3596)

Does anybody in their right mind doubt for a minute that Bush's militarization of space is intended to generate immense profits for the industries involved in its production?

applez101 - 01:54am May 9, 2001 EST (#3584 of 3596)

artemis -

That's easy: Canada has the advantage of acting within a US military umbrella, so can afford getting by with first-generation F-18s, indigenous GM armored cars, and modified M-16s (related more to original Armalite design). Why buy an Osprey when an Otter will do?

Finally, with less than half the amount of people in the UK, Canada doesn't really have all that spare cash lying about ... so has to make do with what it's got. Hence Special Forces seizures of hired naval lift of Canadian armaments during a contractual dispute as we saw last year (which, iirc, represented 10 or 20% of all Canadian armor).

vival5 - 01:54am May 9, 2001 EST (#3585 of 3596)

Artemis - Canada, great nation that it is, is NOT a world power, that's why. The US is a target for the whole world. Part deserved, part not. There is not a third-world, anti-american country in the whole world that would not be delighted to hit us in the chops. Big time.

applez101 - 01:55am May 9, 2001 EST (#3586 of 3596)

vival5 - but what should also be recognized is that most of those parties that might attack us would actually rather deal with us and get something from us. Bargain!

vival5 - 01:57am May 9, 2001 EST (#3587 of 3596)

Sorry. Didn't address the question. The only way to protect a person, country, whatever is to create an imbalance in your favor. Nothing else works. Humans are not really very nice. Power is and always has been the key. Nasty, isn't it?

applez101 - 02:02am May 9, 2001 EST (#3588 of 3596)

Vival - I disagree, the US-Canadian relationship testafies to the fact. So does NATO, especially in its ability to continue to exist after the end of the Cold War.

The Warsaw Pact was an exercise of your me-first principles, and see where that ended up!

Where one's national interests positively intersect, are neutral, or do not negatively influence eachother's is an opportunity for bargains and alliances, producing a bedrock of evolving safety that NMD can never hope to match.

applez101 - 02:04am May 9, 2001 EST (#3589 of 3596)

Furthermore, where there is a conflict of national interests, there are numerous steps and opportunities before hostilities are necessary.

vival5 - 02:07am May 9, 2001 EST (#3590 of 3596)

Appelez: I like that! Of course, it is the very best way. Excuse me, but I always get personal, because I believe that's where we all start from. Like a family? We give some, take some, meet a compromise? Ah, that we could! We are like families, we countries, these nations, not always willing to compromise, not willing to give up an inch of our territories, wanting more, deprived because we do not have more, different ideas about almost everything (How can this happen in a family), every reason to unite except for our petty differences that are more imagined than real. Sorry - It ain't going to change pal.

ridakhan9632001 - 02:31am May 9, 2001 EST (#3591 of 3596)

donna think it appropriate.do u think in a world full of poverty and deprivement we can afford such a luxury.instead of being terrified smalll terrorist states let us help them so that they may feel us friendly if they won't even a super missile defence shield wo'nt protect us

armel7 - 02:41am May 9, 2001 EST (#3592 of 3596)
Science/Health Forums Host

AP Article:Bush to explore varity of missile defense approaches

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense