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?

almarst-2001 - 03:37pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4282 of 4466)

On UN 95 to 5.

As rarelly as it is, I am with T. Friedman's assertion that the US is using the UN as its foreign policy tool for a very high degree.

It's a bit strange the T. Friedman have noticed this phenomen only now. I can only wonder what caused his "blindeness" to disappear? The Jesus-like "magic" of a Republican Administration?;)

almarst-2001 - 03:56pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4283 of 4466)

gisterme 5/29/01 3:34pm

"Russia and China aren't US enemies and are not the object of the proposed BMD. If you've seen any evidence that the case is otherwise."

The Bush-Ramsfeld-Wolfoviz-Bzezinski etc. "team" suggected that china is the next biggest tread for the US and the Far East is the next major area of US military concern and involvement. I only hope you are the only one here who "missed" the "news". If you still disagree, I will look and post the corresponding links.

On Iraq.

Iraq have had during the Gulf War and may still have some WMD including chemical and biological. But never used it. Can you explain "Why such a terrible "underhuman" - the Saddam, the "Butcher of Bagdad" - as the US Administration and the media portraited him, the one who does not care about his people, why didn't he use it?"

It seems to me, much more mad-men batchers occupy quite a diffrent city, far from Bagdad. And they perfectly know it and are quite comfortable in their chears, sitting figuratively on the pile of the bones of innocent civilians and human beings. They know it, I know it. Don't you?

gisterme - 04:06pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4284 of 4466)

smartalix wrote: "...As Bush is currently pushing it, BMD would be a unilateral program. Who are we involving? Do you think Bush would actually include the Russians beyond paying them off for silence?..."

That's right, smartalix; but "currently" is the key word there. This BMD proposal has created opportunities for extensive negotiation that is just beginning. Many hints have been dropped that the US would like this to involve others. Nothing else makes much sense. I'll wager a prediction that if the US moves ahead with a BMD program both Russia and China will be directly involved by the time all the negotiation is over. I'll hang myself out even further to say that I'm sure that the negotiations will result in drastic reductions in US and Russian strategic weapons, whether a BMD is deployed or not. Read back through the thread for supporting rationale.

Missile defense does not only have poor rationale, it fails at even the limited role it has been portrayed as being good at. Unilateral deployment of a missile-defense system of any kind is destabilizing.

As said above, don't think there will be an entirely unilateral program. So far as suitability of a BMD for application to any limited role goes, I can only say that it seems way too early to say wheter BMD can accomplish anything or not in terms of success or failure. If the BMD proposal leads to significant strategic disarmament, I'd call that success, even if there's no deployment.

Still, it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that Iraq, Iran or any other nation so inclined could develop, beg, borrow or steal one or more ICBMs. I don't know about you, but I'd be a lot more worried about Saddam Hussein having a half dozen ICBMs at his disposal than I am about Russia having thousands. After all, Saddam's personal destruction is NOT assured, even if a hundred A-bombs were used in Iraq.

almarst-2001 - 04:27pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4285 of 4466)

Security Means Militarization Means Money

"The military-industrial complex has reviewed U.S. defense strategy and found it lacking. It needs more money, new arenas (space), a new enemy (China), and new missiles. What it doesn't need are allies and arms control treaties. FPIF, together with several other organizations--including Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, World Policy Institute, Project on Defense Alternatives, Project on Government Oversight, and Council for a Livable World--is responding point by point to the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Review and the new militarism in government. At an FPIF-sponsored press briefing on May 14 at the National Press Building, FPIF adviser Bill Hartung and FPIF's Asia-Pacific editor John Gershman, together with Cindy Williams of MIT, Lawrence Korb of the Council of Foreign Relations, and Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information, strongly critiqued the direction of the security policy under the Bush administration."

Transcript of FPIF Press Briefing on Defense Strategy - http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/media/releases/2001/051401transcript.html

Holding the Line: U.S. Defense Strategy By Cindy Williams - http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol6/v6n19defense.html

Bush's Nuclear Doctrine: From MAD to NUTS By Bill Hartung - http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/0012nuclear.html

Briefing Book: Bush Administration Defense Reviews - http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/media/0105briefingbook/index.html

Citizen Agenda: Demilitarization - http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/cgaa/demil.html

almarst-2001 - 04:39pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4286 of 4466)

gisterme 5/29/01 4:06pm

"After all, Saddam's personal destruction is NOT assured, even if a hundred A-bombs were used in Iraq."

Questions:

1. Can you please tell "Why do you precisely hate so much the Saddam? Apart from the fact that you was taught to do so by the US media and Administrations. What do you know about Saddam which is so uniquely terrible and desrves and justifies the A-bombing of Iraq?"

2. What facts can you present to show that Saddam does not care about citizens of Iraq?

3. Can you please explain why Saddam will survive the A-bombing of Iraq?

4. Can you tell "Why Saddam did not use the WMD during the Gulf War?

5. Can you explain "Why the US destroyed the Iraqi water purification systems - the only source of safe drincable water in a country for its civilian population?"

(180 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense