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 - 11:16pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5742 of 5770)
Possumdag@excite.com

George Johnstone LouMazza Lou Mazza Mazza9 et al .. the midmoon must be out in Dallas .. Nite!

possumdag - 11:29pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5743 of 5770)
Possumdag@excite.com

Sheild fits here in the world mind

possumdag - 11:31pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5744 of 5770)
Possumdag@excite.com

When a communicator attempts to convince you that a particular action will lead to disaster or to utopia, it may be helpful to ask the following questions:

Is there enough data to support the speaker's predictions about the future?

Can I think of other ways that things might turn out?

If there are many different ways that things could turn out, why is the speaker painting such an extreme picture?

possumdag - 11:32pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5745 of 5770)
Possumdag@excite.com

Answer to last point .. because some faction may become 'extremely' rich - perhaps

lunarchick - 02:46am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5746 of 5770)
lunarchick@www.com

Whatever happened to ..... can't even remember the name ...

lunarchick - 08:59am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5747 of 5770)
lunarchick@www.com

Pop

lunarchick - 09:15am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5748 of 5770)
lunarchick@www.com

Mr Putin repeated Russian scepticism that the US faced any real missile threat from so-called rogue states. They were armed, he said, with old Soviet rocketry based on German technology from the last world war. For such countries to develop modern rocketry capable of threatening the US would take decades, he said. ft.com

lunarchick - 09:18am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5749 of 5770)
lunarchick@www.com

Denials

rshowalter - 09:19am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5750 of 5770)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Much is being said on this forum, from many points of view.

I I believe the following piece deserves special attention, and puts the situation is a very concise perspective, showing something both of the administration's position, and objections to it.

I'm bolding sections that I feel are particularly enlightening, and add a comment-question.

Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense By JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html

"WASHINGTON, June 21 — Senate Democrats sharply questioned Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld today about the high cost and unproven effectiveness of a national missile defense system, and they raised deep concerns about the administration's threats to withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty if the Russians refused to amend it.

"During his first hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee since his confirmation, Mr. Rumsfeld met a surprisingly unified skepticism from liberal and centrist Democrats regarding missile defense, signaling the difficulties President Bush is likely to face when he tries to sell a plan to Congress later this year.

"In one exchange, Senator Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, questioned Mr. Rumsfeld's suggestion that the Pentagon would consider deploying an antimissile system before it had finished testing if the threat of an attack seemed imminent.

"Noting that the Pentagon had failed in several recent tests to shoot down ballistic missiles, Mr. Cleland said, "I have serious doubts and reservations that the issue of national missile defense has been given too great a priority in your calculations.

""National missile defense is an uncertain trumpet at this point," he continued, "and we ought not to blow it before we test it and fully make sure it is deployable. It doesn't make sense to deploy this system without that guarantee."

(more)

lunarchick - 09:20am Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5751 of 5770)
lunarchick@www.com

Putin drew a parallel between Nazism and the contemporary threats of ..

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense