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?

dirac_10 - 09:44am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5514 of 5537)

rshowalter - 09:42am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5514 of 5514)

dirac, you stink.

Stunning in it's logic and reason. Absolutely your best analysis yet.

Other than the "voices" informing you about my real identity, and why I'm here.

rshowalter - 09:45am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5515 of 5537)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

dirac , your idea that it "worked like a charm" seems gut-wrenchingly ugly to me.

Many of your arguments strike me that way.

Judging from comments from other posters, I'm not alone in that.

Not that you're wrong, about everything, in every respect. Neither was Hitler.

Life is too complexly articulated for that.

But often very, very wrong, and very ugly.

dirac_10 - 10:03am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5516 of 5537)

rshowalter - 09:45am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5515 of 5515)

Judging from comments from other posters, I'm not alone in that.

They are just bitter because the Serbian people are free, and joining Europe in peace and prosperity. They would much rather have them enslaved by Milosevic.

A very small part of the Serbian people, and hated by the majority.

rshowalter - 10:20am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5517 of 5537)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

An editorial today is worth setting out in full here:

Invitation to an Arms Race http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/20/opinion/20WED2.html

"Last Saturday President Bush and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, talked hopefully about bridging the differences between Washington and Moscow on missile defense. On Monday Mr. Putin indicated what might happen if they did not. If Washington withdraws from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, he warned, Moscow will set aside its 1993 nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States and put multiple warheads on its missile force.

"The White House should take Mr. Putin's warning seriously. Even a cash-strapped Russia could afford to add hundreds of multiple warheads to new and existing missiles. Mr. Putin's words reinforce an already strong case for amending or replacing the ABM treaty rather than simply abandoning it. If both countries start renouncing existing arms control agreements, Americans will be less secure from nuclear missile dangers than they are now.

"Land-based multi-warhead missiles, each capable of delivering powerful nuclear bombs to as many as 10 separate targets, were the most dangerous weapons in Russia's cold-war arsenal. The 1993 treaty that provided for their eventual elimination was one of the great achievements of the first Bush presidency. It should not be needlessly jeopardized now. The United States can proceed with all the research and testing it needs in the next few years without withdrawing from the ABM treaty. Meanwhile, the administration should work with Russian officials to negotiate treaty changes that will be needed to perform tests that may be required years from now and to start building a limited missile shield when it becomes practical.

"Multiple-warhead missiles were first developed in the late 1960's, partly to assure both the United States and the Soviet Union that, even after a surprise attack, they could overwhelm the first generation of missile defenses then being developed. Their ability to overwhelm the defenses persuaded the Nixon administration to agree to the ABM treaty and the Ford administration to deactivate the modest missile defense program the treaty permitted. With defensive systems strictly limited, Washington and Moscow felt comfortable enough to negotiate limits and then reductions on offensive weapons, including the eventual elimination of land- based multi-warhead missiles. These arms control agreements, which have done so much to reduce cold-war nuclear dangers, were premised on both sides' continued adherence to the ABM treaty.

"But with the end of the cold war and the emergence of new threats, political support has grown in America for a limited missile defense against unpredictable countries like North Korea, Iraq or Iran. The Bush administration wants to move quickly toward building such a shield, even though much more testing and research are needed to determine if it would be effective.

"For the next few years that testing can proceed within the framework of the ABM treaty, which permits extensive testing of land-based interceptor rockets, restricted testing of sea- and air-based defenses and almost all forms of research. During this period every effort should be made to work out new agreements with Russia to amend or supersede the ABM treaty, so as to permit testing and construction needed to meet today's new threats while maintaining the restrictions still necessary to prevent a dangerous new arms race.

rshowalter - 10:24am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5518 of 5537)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Specter of a Rearmed Japan Stirs Its Wartime Generation by HOWARD W. FRENCH http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/20/world/20JAPA.html?pagewanted=all .... featured on the front page, above the fold is distinguished. I think it is very much worth the time to read, for people following this thread. French's piece includes a key question, always worth asking:

" "Even as a young man, I wondered how could people who have been sent so far from home feel like they are protecting our country. Japan was attacking other countries, and if protecting ourselves was the mission, all we had to do was stay at home."

Maybe not all we have to do, and maybe not always. But this is key question, which needs to be asked much more often than it now is --- and it is a question that almarst asks on this thread, again and again, with variations and much supporting detail.

It is a question, these days, about which the United States does not seem to have compelling answers. It as if the answer "goes without saying."

The answer needs saying, in detail, when military actions, which kill and lay waste, are to be jusified.

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense