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?

mazza9 - 12:26pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5778 of 5793)

Let's get one thing straight. There is no ABM treaty. It is a piece of paper in the National Archives with as much force as our treaty obligations to the Shah of Iran, The Austro Hungerian Empire, the Turkish Empire and the Mexican empire of Maximillian! I reiterate,Rome, Carthage, Troy, The Peacock Throne,(Iran), and the Soviet Union do not exist.

Only a fool or an ignoramous doesn't get this and if any Congressman or Senator asks questions regarding treaties that don't exist then they need to go to the JFK School of International Relations and "get smart"

LouMazza

LouMazza

rshowalter - 12:42pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5779 of 5793)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I wonder how many Senators agree with you -- either as a matter of law, or reasonable action?

The Democrats don't seem to. Putin doesn't either.

midmoon - 12:43pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5780 of 5793)

George Johson?

Who is he?

I know Harry G.Johnson,an economist,and LB Johhson a president of the US but not G.Johnson.

Is there anybody knows him?

The Natzis----- an enemy to an open society such as the US.

The Communism-- the biggest enemy to an open society such as the US.

The totalitarianism---the other enemy to an open society such as the US.

The racism-------a new enemy to an open society such as the US.

The common feature of these Gargages is that they function as if they were religions and require gigantic sacrifices of the people.

The histoty tells it!

Bob,you may not be a communist but be a psedo-communist.

Forget it! Believe me!

rshowalter - 12:48pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5781 of 5793)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some might find your mode of expression unworthy, as well -- derision -- built to cut off communication, not to produce the possibility of making deals.

The Bush administration wants to behave, in too many ways, too much like NAZIs, and I'm using the term with some pretty clear analogies -- and an intellectual pedegree, right from war criminals, that traces out rather clearly.

If they could validly put those concerns to rest, by changing behavior, missile defense, and a lot of other things, would become possible.

I think you can get a very good sense of what people object to in US policy from this thread, without by any means reading it all. Search "gisterme"-- keep hitting "search" at the bottom of pages till you get to where gisterme comes in -- and look at what gisterme says, and the context in which the statements are made.

People, I believe, who judge for themselves may sympathize with almarst's concerns, which, I'd guess, are President Putin's as well.

rshowalter - 12:48pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5782 of 5793)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You are collaborating those concerns.

gisterme - 12:48pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5783 of 5793)

gisterme 6/21/01 9:34pm

dirac wrote: "...At what point does the "trust" become reasonable and certain?"

gisterme answered: "...Can't give a truly objectve answer to that, dirac. I'd say that trust is reasonable when both parties feel that it is. I'd also say that for trust to be certain would take a lot longer than that, if it's even possible. That's the reason that a hedge against cheating could help everybody feel better and be safer in pursuing a more certain trust. Could only happen in a "small arsenal" environment."

possumdag answered( possumdag 6/21/01 9:41pm ): "...GI .. is your post above on trust 'gibberish' .. i couldn't follow the logic ... 'Trust Me'

Sorry you couldn't follow, possumdag. The context was built in a few preceeding posts. The subject of the particular discussion was "how a joint BMD might act as a hedge against cheating" by any party.

The last sentence about "small arsenal environment" presupposes that there has been a drastic reduction or elimination of ICBMs world wide; that ICBM fleets are at least small enough that the proposed limited BMD could be effective against them. It also presupposes that BMD includes everybody. In that situation uncertainties due to the final "trust gap", that lingering bit of uncertainty WRT others' intentions, might be mitigated by making "absolute or certain" trust unnecessary. Those presuppositions are based on a preceeding assumtion that the US and Russia can and will negotiate in good faith to get those numbers of ICBMs down. That should be possible since Russia and the US are no longer enemies.

So long as the US and Russia have MAD scale ICBM fleets or BMD is unilateral all it can do is protect against crazies.

Does that help, possumdag?

rshowalter - 01:05pm Jun 22, 2001 EST (#5784 of 5793)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The following was, for a time, featured on the wonderful and distinguished Encyclopedia Britannica web site. It has been removed, and links to it are not available. I'm including it here, because it gathers together wonderful references (some removed, but many remaining) that I believe are important to see, when one asks about what Friedman meant when he said that he had

" no doubt that Kissinger is as cynical, mean and nasty a bureaucratic infighter and player of the game of nations as his most venomous critics have charged. At times, he can make Machiavelli sound like one of the Sisters of Mercy. . . ."

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense