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?

rshowalter - 06:50am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4598 of 4609)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Rumsfeld Outlines to NATO Fast Track for Missile Shield by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08NATO.html

"BRUSSELS, June 7 — Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States is likely to deploy certain antiballistic missile systems before testing on them is completed, signaling the speed with which the Bush administration hopes to develop and use the still-unproven technology.

" In a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Mr. Rumsfeld outlined a two-tiered approach in which the administration intends to continue consultations with its skeptical allies and Russia, even as the Pentagon moves as swiftly as possible to develop and deploy systems."

Interesting - the significance of this US position, and both its risks and opportunities, depend on whether and how fast MD systems can be deployed.

For the costs being discussed in the article, real world peace might be obtainable. At the same time, gisterme and I have both said that the missile defense initiative, even if it is never deployed, and even if it never works, may, by decentering many interrelations -- permit a much better set of military balances for the world than the current one.

Or a much worse one.

The stakes could hardly be higher here.

If people are working on the basis of facts rather than illusions and deceptions, there may be much to hope for. If there are significant illusions and deceptions involved, a world already precarious will be more precarious still.

rshowalter - 08:03am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4599 of 4609)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Solving for C by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/opinion/08FRIE.html

" So here's an interesting question that you hear around Europe these days: What will the Bush foreign policy be? No, no — not what was it during the campaign, not what was it for its first 100 days, but what will it really be?

" In case you haven't noticed, the world lately has done for the Bush foreign policy what Senator Jim Jeffords did for the Bush domestic policy — pushed back.

" . .

" There is nothing wrong with a new team coming in and saying: We're going to be tougher than the previous lot. Some of Mr. Bush's instincts are right. But there is a fine line between a tougher effective foreign policy and a tougher ineffective foreign policy, with no allies. . . . . . The Bushies started out with anti-Clintonism as their framework. They are now abandoning that — but without defining an intellectual framework for their new approach."

Are we seeing hundred billions dollar money bets placed, and the safety of the world jeapordized, by "gamesmanship" or does the administration know what it's doing?

rshowalter - 08:29am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4600 of 4609)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

On forum threads here, and elsewhere, pseudonyms are the rule, real names are the exception. I use my real name, because I want to take responsibility for what I say. On the Guardian TALK boards, which are sometimes influential, a very knowledgable poster, especially knowledgable about military and political affairs, who sometimes says things that would disturb some people, signs his posts "Rumsfeld." When I searched his name, there were 375 entries. There were postings on the following threads.

Analysis of US foreign policy http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee82208/47

John McCain switch coming soon ???? http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee83a46/0

Where did Gore go wrong? http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee83c89/0

Calling Americans II - WHAT DO THINK OF YOUR PRESIDENT http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee810be/0

Rumsfeld is a phony http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee83a5e/0

If "Rumsfeld" is indeed the Secretary of Defense, these threads are especially interesting. In my view, worth some time.

If the name "Rumsfeld" is misleading, perhaps someone might let the Secretary know that his name is being used in a way that might mislead, in case he feels like protesting.

jimmcd53 - 08:47am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4601 of 4609)

If the lead in James Dao's story in the Times today is accurate, Rumsfeld belongs in a lunatic asylum.

zxw2001 - 08:54am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4602 of 4609)

ZXW June 8 8.50 am http://www.xrong.com/ xr1994@xrong.com

As I said in this area before, NMD is very important not only for all of American, but also for others on the world. Support NMD! Support NMD! Support NMD!

tedcrump - 09:17am Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4603 of 4609)

I don't understand the concept of trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. Why not arm the ABM with a nuclear warhead? The warhead would not have to be exploded, which would violate the aerial testing treaty, but could be computer simulated. This does not address whether or not the whole idea is good or not, just the problem of missing the incoming missile and decoys.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense