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?

possumdag - 12:35am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5063 of 5069)
Possumdag@excite.com

pungent smell of .. reads like a Disney adventure story.

dirac_10 - 12:37am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5064 of 5069)

almarst-2001 - 11:46pm Jun 13, 2001 EST (#5053 of 5061)

What I dispise is the Dirac's notion on how "generows" it was for US to spare the Russia from nuclear attack.

Which, of course is a lie. I just pointed out that we could have easily conquered them since we had the bomb for 4 years alone.

The only time I mentioned it was in listing things that might explain your "problems" that you complained of.

But easy to see why you would need to distort my position. The actual one is unassailable.

I consider this kind of logic ultimatly AMMORAL and EVIL.

Actually a historical fact. And a good answer to your questions about a first strike. We didn't do it even when Russia was virtually defenseless.

What you and dirac may not realise, the "romantic" image of "free and democratic" America... was shuttered in Serbia two years ago.

Neglecting, of course, that it was virtually all of Europe and Western Civilization that rose up as one. They certainly don't follow our orders.

Now why would you think that Western Civilization would all rise up and decide to pick on Serbia of all places?

Here's a hint. Racial Politics.

Been there, done that.

possumdag - 12:44am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5065 of 5069)
Possumdag@excite.com

GUthread

possumdag - 12:50am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5066 of 5069)
Possumdag@excite.com

So what are the approvers of the Bush proposal actually looking for (when the sheild concept is a sham to science) .. what do they hope to gain ?

wolves92 - 01:11am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5067 of 5069)

Obviously, President Bush knows something that we dont. Why else would he be pushing for a stronger defense system through NATO? Think about it. Something is definetly happening behind closed doors. But I guess that is the real mystery. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, things have appeared to be RELATIVELY stable from an international perspective (no hints of WWIII). However, President Bush, the CIA, NSA etc have eyes and ears that we dont. Clinton wasn't concerned with extending federal funds to the defense dept. for the purpose of creating a stronger defense system. But why Bush? Is it just a right wing thing? Is it simply hysteria? Germany seems to think so. Or is there something else- something real- something that you and I wouldn't expect? I think that there is. Terrorists are capable of achieving anything. Nobody can deny that. Well, you might say that I've been reading too many books. Was the bombing of our Naval vessel in Yemen a book? Was the World Trade Center a book? Is Bin Laden a book? Beirut 1983? I think that it is important that we realize that there are many things happening outside of our immediate sphere of perception. For those who would disagree with the President's decision to build stronger defenses, I would challenge you to take a deeper look at the international community. If you are 99% sure that things are going to be fine- then you better back the President's plan! IT ONLY TAKES 1

inkevkevin0 - 02:13am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5068 of 5069)

RE: Wolves... How inane. The real problems I eluded to above are 100% likely to occur, we have been facing them for years. A missile defense shield could only be valuable against a large scale attack with multiple incoming warheads. This is unlikely, and should at any rate be preventable by the establishment and maintenance of good relations among nations AND through conventional or existing military deterrents. Aside from these considerations, the technological feasibilty of a BMD shield is exceedingly questionnable. A true leader would take on the challenge of facing real problems affecting the citizens of this country today, not some fantastic paranoid illusion. Bush is misguided and makes our strong nation appear a huddling coward to the world. Sooner or later we must face our real enemy, social problems like crime, poverty and addiction that attack us relentlessly and could actually be ameliorated by the vast expenditures Bush proposes we spend to ease the fear he seeks to inspire. BMD is a proposal by cowards for cowards -- are we really so vulnerable?

no8wire - 05:01am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5069 of 5069)

If a rogue nation gets the bomb then do you really think they will launch it at the USA by missile, and get immediately blown to smithereens. Bush is planning to spend billions to pay back his campaign contributors on their 'investment' in him.

The system even if it does work, and it hasn't to date, can be easily overcome by putting a bomb in a shipping container and sending it into any of the USA's harbor's and exploding it on the boat.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense