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?

vmmlund2 - 07:56am May 9, 2001 EST (#3596 of 3601)

You won't understand missle defense if you don't examine who has been getting the money for it and who will get more. It's your money. Do you want to spend it? Do you really think it will be worth it?

possumdag - 09:42am May 9, 2001 EST (#3597 of 3601)
Possumdag@excite.com

We have considered this

possumdag - 10:04am May 9, 2001 EST (#3598 of 3601)
Possumdag@excite.com

SKorea france netherlands denmark japan paris - US talks.

None of these guys are keen on the Bwsh move re scrapping the 72 MD agreement, they don't see N Korea as a rogue and they think arms escalation will occur.

igranof1 - 10:51am May 9, 2001 EST (#3599 of 3601)

Missile Defense has always been a ploy for the weaponization of space as part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's VISION 20/20 plan (You're telling me that a laser so precise as to shoot a missile on the ground in enemy territory while it is launching is only going to be used defensively!!!???). The real intention is only now coming to the fore with Rumsfield's space militization plan as Missile Defense fails to get the public and international support that this administration has hoped. Finally, at least, the administration is forced to where its Real Politik heart on its sleeve, and admit that their intention is to junk the rule of law (i.e. arms control treaties) and aim for what the VISION 20/20 document calls Full spectrum Dominance (water, land, air, space and information).

rshowalter - 11:23am May 9, 2001 EST (#3600 of 3601)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Full spectrum dominance isn't possible -- too many smart people, and capable socio-technical systems, outside America -- too much openness and vulnerability, every which way.

Attempting full spectrum dominance is suicidal folly -- but I think people, once they take a good look, will see that.

The US ought to take a lead in seeing this -- but it could be the last to do so, and results could still be safe for all concerned (though the US might waste some money.) Because "full spectrum dominance" is simply unobtainable.

Q: How many foreign base closings, and changes in international agreements, would it take to radically reduce US military power?

Not many.

Suppose that the US DID have total dominance in space - and about missiles -- how safe would America be? Not safe at all.

Peace is the only reasonable option.

rshowalter - 11:26am May 9, 2001 EST (#3601 of 3601)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Watching Colin Powell on C-Span yesterday evening, testifying before an appropriations committee -- I saw patterns of thought, about trust, accountability, and interdependence, that made much sense to me.

I think a lot of other posters here might agree.

If some of the present administration policies look unsustainable --- it still seems that the administration has some excellent capabilities, too.

Perfect logic, in the roiling involved in transitions, isn't necessary. A satisfactory conclusion is.

There are many ways the world could be much better than it is -- and the administration could play a decisive role in making things better -- though it may end up doing so only by setting a terrible example, and stripping away bluffs the US has used for too many years.

There are plenty of good ways things could go, as well as bad ways, and I'm optimistic.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense