![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (5986 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 11:35am Jun 25, 2001 EST (#5987
of 5991) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Some good questions raised, one way or another, in the last few
posting.
This thread IS about missile defense -- and the motivation for
missile defense on which everyone seems agreed -- the need to
reduce danger from nuclear weapons, and danger and senseless
death from other weapons, too.
The issues raised, since about #830 of this thread have mostly
been dealt with in response to specific, and very deeply felt,
questions raised by almarst , that Dawn Riley and I have
worked hard to respond to, and that gisterme has spent much
time on, as well.
The thread is built to deal with complexities that take
staffs to deal with -- not because the solutions, in the end,
have to be complicated, but because the focusing to get to right
answers is complicated.
There's a lot covered in the following links, which include many
other links.
MD4388 rshowalter
5/31/01 2:49pm ... MD4389 rshowalter
5/31/01 2:51pm
MD4390 rshowalter
5/31/01 2:53pm
MD4392 gisterme
5/31/01 3:02pm ... MD4393 rshowalter
5/31/01 3:12pm
Here is some of the language these links include:
md3477 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:26pm reads in part: ...... "md2012:
almarst-2001 4/5/01 2:44pm was important with respect to
nuclear disarmament -- it was a conditional acceptance (on the
"stand in" basis of this thread -- and may be interesting as a "dry
run"
rshowalter 4/5/01 2:32pm "Speaking for the longer term -- the
only source of energy on the horizon, that can let the world go on
indefinitely, and permit peoples now impoverished to share in
prosperity -- has to be nuclear power. "
. almarst: "Agree."
" But nuclear weapons would have to be effectively outlawed. Many
kinds of stability and reliability would have to be higher than
today. "
" almarst: "Mutually dependent."
THIS, ON OUR "DRY RUN" BASIS, IS IMPORTANT COMMON GROUND.
And the key phrase is mutually dependent.
Dependent on a lot of things. And on a confidence level about a
lot of things.
. . . . .
" gisterme , after half a century of terror, including
decades where the fate of all mankind has been at risk, we still
have a yawning, painful abyss between two powers that still point
world ending arsenals at each other.
. . . . .
" . . . it is amazing how primative the level of communication
currently is. We have to get to know each other MUCH better. I think
this thread has made a significant start at that, and there's more
to be done. Even though some of it is laborious, and some
embarrassing.
*****
We're in a mess, the world is in much more danger than it needs
to be, and messy and slow as it may seem, we may be making progress.
We can do without casting stones.
But a little accounting (done, and ideally, done fairly quietly,
but clearly enough so that people can go on, "reading from the same
page") could have its uses.
* * * *
I think that we're moving in a direction where a great deal that
is hopeful is possible. Dealing with complexity and interdependence,
but focusing to sharp, satisfactory specifics, as well.
rshowalter
- 11:51am Jun 25, 2001 EST (#5988
of 5991)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Every one of the questions raised in Skeptical Senators
Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html
remains important.
MD5750-53 rshowalter
6/22/01 9:19am
And the context in which things are happening needs to be
accomodated.
MD5754 rshowalter
6/22/01 9:25am ...... A Delicate Nuclear Balance By
ANATOL LIEVEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/21/opinion/21LIEV.html
The idea that "we are almost at a deal -- we just haven't
agreed on a price" --- simply doesn't fit what Putin is
saying in speeches, what almarst has been saying so
emphatically and carefully here, or the positions Russia has taken
with respect to the militarization of space, in conferences
involving a hundred nations.
jimmyz211a
- 11:57am Jun 25, 2001 EST (#5989
of 5991)
Just Another Way To Waste Americans Tax Dollars
By the time the missile shield would be completed there would be
dozens of ways to counter act it. A terrorist today can carry A W-88
suitcase nuclear weapon to any large American city and destroy it. A
ship or plane can bring a nuke here because of our ridiculious rules
of engagement ay destroy any US city. Like don't shoot first until
you're fired at, or don't fire until you have confirmed the target
and request permission to fire upon it policy. Our troops aren't
even allowed to carry a loaded clip in their weapons. I guess they
think we are morons and will shoot themselves or someone by mistake.
When I was on the USS Lawrence DDG-4 steaming for the Persian Gulf
in 1983 we were informed that a truck filled with explosives ran the
check point and blew up the barracks and killed 250 Marines and
sailors. The USS Cole is a good example why we can't protect even
the most simple process of refueling a ship. So do you think this
country can build a anti defense missile system? I don't. If they do
it will be over due, way over budget and won't work, just like we
finally found out that Pentagon officials were lying to us about the
Patriot missile was doing a good job knocking down Iraq's Scud
missiles. The Patriots were a huge failure and the public was lied
to about it. What do you think Pentagon officials will tell us about
the anti-missile system? Lies that's what.
James Ziolkowski Buffalo, NY shellback211@aol.com ten year Navy
veteran
  (2
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
