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?

leftfoot12 - 12:52pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5441 of 5462)

is everybody dreaming or what. it is just a promise, bush gave to the arms lobby in exchange for support on his presedential election!! it will come out the same as the so called precission rockets used in yugoslavia, where not even 15% of the targets where distroyed. m.roosnek switzerland

almarst-2001 - 12:53pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5442 of 5462)

The multiple warheads on Russian missiles would be the least damaging to the World's peace response. However, I suspect some much deadlier, and dangerous means would be developed. And not just by Russia.

almarst-2001 - 01:05pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5443 of 5462)

leftfoot12 6/19/01 12:52pm

The danger is, just in Yugoslavia, that events tend to develop as follows:

- The Arms industry develops the next generation of a wearpons.

- The Pentagon wants to try the new toys and more of.

- The US President wants to "leave legacy" (what a nice term for oversised ego;) and to show the world "who is the boss".

And what can better terminate such a chain as a "small", "painless" (and even entertaining to some) "military exercise" over some small defenceless country? The rest is just some technicalities, the CIA, the State Dep. and the eager Western media would love to produce. After the invention of "humanitarian" bombing and "democratisation trough bombing and blocade" - all is possible.

rshowalter - 01:20pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5444 of 5462)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst , would you have a sense, as of now, how many countries in the world tend to agree with you, and how many think of the United States as "the good guys" when it comes to military matters?

(That's a different question from the question -- how many like the US otherwise.)

I don't think "majority rules" on this issue - but it does seem an interesting question.

Another thing -- do you have a sense of how many countries have populations that now feel protected by the United States -- and why they think so ?

I'd be very interested in your answers, and also any sense you might have about how these answers seem to be changing.

dirac_10 - 01:47pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5445 of 5462)

almarst-2001 - 12:46pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5440 of 5444)

Those points made by Putin are the most importand in my view.

You forget the one that says that NMD is impossible to make work:

He also insisted that Bush's proposed missile defense shield would never work.

''It's like a bullet hitting a bullet. Is it possible today or not? Today experts say that it is impossible to achieve this,'' Putin said

Can't have it both ways.

dirac_10 - 01:50pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5446 of 5462)

almarst-2001 - 12:53pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5442 of 5445)

The multiple warheads on Russian missiles would be the least damaging to the World's peace response.

Actually you missed the whole thing. The threat is clear. Mirvs give a first strike advantage. One missle can defeat many missles. It is very destabilizing. And recognized to be so. This is his irresponsible threat.

rshowalter - 01:54pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5447 of 5462)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

keep on going, George.

dirac_10 - 01:59pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5448 of 5462)

Don't tell everyone. You're spoiling it. Let the "voices" do it.

dirac_10 - 02:05pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5449 of 5462)

leftfoot12 - 12:52pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5441 of 5448)

is everybody dreaming or what. it is just a promise, bush gave to the arms lobby in exchange for support on his presedential election!!

Nah, they have no real clout after the end of the Cold War. Been taking it on the chin pretty good.

it will come out the same as the so called precission rockets used in yugoslavia, where not even 15% of the targets where distroyed.

I certainly hope so. Western Civilization won without even one single solitary casualty. And the civilian casualties were minimized despite Milosevic's clear efforts to get as many Serbian innocents killed as possible.

God bless Bill Clinton, the best darn president this country ever had.

bedix - 02:54pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5450 of 5462)

All I have to say is that Mr. Bush was not very astute in unilaterally announcing his missile plans. I was always taught to think first, then act. Except in dire emergencies, thinking first is still the best of all action. Even in "cyclical" emergencies, if the action to be taken is of a fairly routine nature, the act to be performed is quite familiar and well rehearsed(the kind of rehearsals that military personnel, firepersons,and/or police persons must undertake in order to at the "ready"). And of course, there is less need to think, the action is automatic. Either Mr. Bush is masquerading as a Yale graduate or, if he in fact attended Yale at all, he spent a lot of time drinking and cutting classes.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense