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?

alty53 - 11:53am Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4985 of 4993)

To dirac 10.......you're still at it......now your reading of history is at best pathetic......after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US was unable to build another fission weapon until 1947 because it had run out of U and Pu.........second, the armys of the USSR numbered more than 250 divisions in eastern Europe as opposed to about 80 divisions in western Europe........third, the USSR had 4 years of battle experience against the best of the Nazi forces as opposed to the US and British 1 year in France fighting against 16 year old German kids in stripped down divisions and a 2 year stalemate in Italy ......fourth, if Truman let Patton go up against Zukov, Zukov would have been on the English Channel in two weeks........stop already with your right-wing crap........!

rshowalter - 12:08pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4986 of 4993)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm glad the Americans and Russians didn't fight then. It would have been better if they'd found a way to make real peace then -- when they owed each other so much -- when the American debt to Russia, paid in Russian suffering and blood, was so great.

It didn't happen. Tragedies happened. Outrages happened. Fearful things happened. The past is over.

We should make peace, now.

Real peace.

If we did, there could be peace in the whole world, I believe. Or a far better chance of it.

alty53 - 12:30pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4987 of 4993)

To rshowalter.....you are correct........the Cold War was not necessary........but, none-the-less it happened.....now that it is over, we have another chance for real lasting peace without brushfire/surrogate wars......but rightest elements in 1945 and rightest elements now have other ideas.......in 1945 it was Pax Americana........today it is Imperium Americana.........and I fear if these rightest get their way......WWIII will be fought sometime around 2020-2030.......I'll be dead by then, but you young folks will suffer immeasurably

almarst-2001 - 12:32pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4988 of 4993)

myllarinen 6/13/01 8:29am

One HAS TO ASSUME that the effective "shield" will be a reality, sooner or later. Its a matter of time.

It is possible if it was in place during the Gulf War, either the Israel was not attacked or the Iraq was completely destroyed.

The MD prime objective is not to defend the US aganst unprovoked suicidal attack by some crasy foreign state. The probability of such an event may be lower then a chance of this Planet to be destroyed by a huge asteroid. As well as any number of other possible disasters including the World-wide flouding as result of a global warming or the new spark of a deadlier kind of an AIDS epidemic for example. The last 2 events has probably a much higher probability. But how much $ the US is going to spend on this?

The "shield" is not going to provide a defense against the suicidal terrorists groups. Firstly, they usually strike out of frustration of arrogant and brutal rejection and explicit exclusion of considerations of their cause. If you lable someone a pariah, tread someone as pariah and live him no legitimate forum for defense - he will inevitably end up beheaving like one. No need to be a great phsychologist to understand. Again, to provide such an unbiaced, legitimate and open forum may be tremendously more cost-effective and long-lasting solution to the problems of terrosism.

The "shield" may provide a defence againt an accidental missle lunch. And one should not discard one from a friendly territory or submarine. However, as a strictly technical problem, I am sure this can be solved at a fraction of a cost with probably less chance of a fault.

So, if not the reasons listed above, what remains? The attempt to guarantee the impunity of US strike against anyone anywere with any kind of munition. To enforce its military domination.

I view it as a "shield" designed to "free the punching hands" of aggression and oppression. It will say "I can hit you at will. But you will not be able to return the punch."

rshowalter - 12:39pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4989 of 4993)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

So if that's true -- or even if that's reasonably likely -- then it is vital (in the sense of life and death) to make that case.

And in the process, if the last five months have been any indication, it may be possible to materially reduce the isolation and injustice that give the US what basis it has for its fear.

If leaders of one or a few nation states wanted the case made -- in a way where closure would be reasonably possible -- and openness would be persuasive -- well, it could be done. I've made suggestions along that line, and there are various ways it could be done. It would need more staffing, and more legitimacy, than this thread has. Still . . . we've made a start.

almarst-2001 - 12:40pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#4990 of 4993)

alty53 6/13/01 12:30pm - "rightest elements"

If you mean Republicans vs. Democrats, I see no significant difference. Wasn't it a Clinton who ordered the bombing of Yugoslavia and may other places accross the World? Clinton did not reject the MD idea, just moved a bit slower.

In WWII, wasn't it a Rusevelt, the Democrat, who provoked the war against Japan and Germany? And I don't think you can convince me those wars where for the declared cause. I believe those where to save, to share and to inherit the posessions of a British Empire.

Show me the difference?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense