Missile Defense

German Officials Question U.S. on Missile Defense by ROGER COHEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/10/world/10CND-GERMAN.html

this excellent piece begins :

"Unconvinced by President Bush's proposals for a missile defense shield, Germany posed today what one American envoy called "very, very serious questions" over the project.

"After meeting German officials, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said that these questions centered on whether such a shield could be built "in a way that is cooperative, rather than confrontational, in a way that enhances stability rather than generating new tensions and new arms races."

and ends:

" . . . . one fundamental problem in transatlantic relations is that European states are rather less convinced of the reality of the new threats to Western security from so-called rogue states than the Bush administration. There was no evidence today that the distance between those perceptions had narrowed.

rshowalter - 08:54pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3671 of 3682)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I lifted a little heavier today -- things felt good, I pushed, and I'm a little spacy. I'm off for the night. I'll be a little stiff, but clear, in the morning.

applez101 - 09:50pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3672 of 3682)

gisterme - hey, wanna find out what happens to humans from radiation & Flash expsoure? Well nothing better than using a real human. Same goes for pressure tests. Just think how advantaged NASA was by the criminal tests the Japanese did on the Chinese.

Again, ethics takes a back seat to perceived necessity. Which, incidentally, is probably the strongest argument in favor of MAD and a maintained nuclear stockpile.

almarst-2001 - 10:11pm May 10, 2001 EST (#3673 of 3682)

gisterme 5/10/01 1:34pm

My mentioned statement reflected my deep frustration. I wish you are right and i am wrong. But the main point I tried to make is this:

The US has being the most powerful nation for many years long before the end of the Cold War. No nation on Earth could even contemplate the attack against it, except USSR in a case of a total nuclear war and mutual destruction. And still the US was and still is involved in a criminal and some times genocidal (Iraq) military and open and cover diplomatic activities using all its might to promote "its interests" (interests?). This is not a behavier of a peace-seeking nation. This is a criminal behavier disgused under the banners of defending the friedom and peace. No different from the behavier of the crusaders and inquisition - self-enrichement in a name of God and Pope. If there is a nation strong and safe enough to afford the morality in its actions, it must be US first. Can you name a one reason why this was/is not a case?

On gisterme 5/10/01 2:31pm

"The cold war is over. Russia is NOT the enemy of the US. The US is NOT the enemy of Russia. Neither wants to conquer or destroy the other."

I never understood the rational behind the US-Russia animosity except as a result of a British efforts to save as much as possible of their colonial Empire and "spheres of influence" they promised to share with US for the help. If not for this, you must believe the propaganda the US was afraid of the spread of the Communism on its own soil. But one must ask - If it is the prosperous and cherished democracy, why whould it be afraid such thing may happen? Alternativelly, if it is nevertheless afraid, may be it is not so prosperows and cherished after all? It can't bouth.

"I don't see why the Russians should be intimidated by a US BMD that would constrain them to anihilating the the US five-times-over rather than ten."

For the following reasons:

- Overhelming conventional force the US is willing to use outside the UN sunctions at will, as is shown in Iraq (no flight zones) and Yugoslavia (under the NATO fig leaf).

- Degradation of the quality and quantity of the Russian BM arsenal, particularelly the Subs.

- Inability to reliably count on a credible response to the US first strike. The MAD was carefully designed to ensure that even after the attack, the nation will still have a small number of BM to sufficiently spoil the "victory".

- Once created, it will be very hard to predict the efficiency and credibility of MD. But the rule will be to assume the worst and develop the assimetric response.

almarst-2001 - 12:15am May 11, 2001 EST (#3674 of 3682)

gisterme,

You stated that you will feel safer under the MD. I don't share this view for the following:

- Neither Russia nor China would accept the fate of Iraq or Yugoslavia. They will be pushed to develop the alternative credible detterrence, most likely space based to eliminate the boosting stage. I wonder how much safer you would feel knowing there are dosens if not hundreds of unattended nuclear warheads waiting to be quietly dropped from the space.

- If there are indeed a "rogue nations" dreaming to attack the US (and I don't believe there are), they will turn to other means, most likely the biological warfare. The way I could imagine will be to develop the deadly flue-like virus with a long incubation period of several weeks, for example. It will take a not too large of a number of terrorists to infect themselve and arrive as a tourists in US for extensive travel. In several weeks there will be tens of thousends (or millions?) of infected people spreading the virus before the first casualty would be noticed. If this scenario does not scare you, what does?

lunarchick - 05:28am May 11, 2001 EST (#3675 of 3682)
lunarchick@www.com

GI - keep saying 'America is the most powerful nation on earth' and other earthlings will think the US is getting too up itself and take it down a peg .... how many seats have gone so far at the UN .. expect more to fall!

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense