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?

almarst-2001 - 08:47pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6105 of 6121)

Russia's Putin appeals to nation to remember lessons of WWII - http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=010622004752&query=Putin

"The world to this day has not freed itself of the ideology that preaches extreme nationalism, religious fanaticism and the idea of world supremacy." !!!

Secondly, I disagree with his notion: "The Great Fatherland War was not a war of Russian against Germans. It was a war against Nazism. Soviet soldiers, together with the Allies, brought liberation from the brown plague to the peoples of the world, the German people included."

in my view, every participant had a different reasons for this war. The Russia and most of a continental Europe defended against Germany unified and mobilised by the Fascist ideology. This time around.

But that was not a first time, the Germany participated as a major player in a major war in Europe. Nor France or the Britain or Russia for that matter. Interestingly, not even the US which took part in an Atlanta expedition war specifically directed against Russia.

The British and France defended their colonial empires and combined their forces to prevent the development of rivaling Germany during both world wars.

The Russia just hoped to weather the storm and protect its borders. When Hitler realised it may take too long to get hold of the British oil in N.Africa - the main reason for their war, they decided to grab the Russian oil first assuming it will take them just a couple of weeks.

Meanwile, the Britis agreed to share some of their wealth with US in exchange for the help against Germany.

That in my view, the short story behind the WWII.

possumdag - 08:55pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6106 of 6121)
Possumdag@excite.com

Power
to the people! WWII
to to the Oil Sheks! 1972

almarst-2001 - 09:00pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6107 of 6121)

As I mentioned above, in my view, NAZISM was used as an ideology to unify the nation for the war. In a same way like any other ideology could. It was horrible. But was it more horrable then the war US waged against Vietnam? Using the anti-communist ideology. This time.

Any war should be prevented.

almarst-2001 - 09:02pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6108 of 6121)

possumdag 6/26/01 8:55pm

;)?

gisterme - 09:02pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6109 of 6121)

almarst wrote: ( almarst-2001 6/26/01 6:44pm ): "If the US would care to prevent the Russia selling the advanced military equipment to the "undesirable" nations it should not exclude the Russian defence industry from the bids for NATO's needs. and it should insist the new NATO members keep and upgarde their military using the Russian help instead of bying the old US hardware..."

Personally I don't understand why the US government minds so much if Russia sells weapons to Iran, for example. I can't imagine that the Russian weapons have improved too much over what they were in 1991 given the limited amount of money available in Russia for R&D since that time. I would think that Russia should be more worried about selling weapons to governments that have religious "links" to rebels that they are already fighting like the Chechens.

Perhaps the US is worried that weapons sold to any of those radical Islamic nations will eventually have to be faced by its ally Israel. That's my best guess, for what it's worth.

As for NATO, I doubt that they would buy Russian weapons just yet because there's just not enough trust between the European nations and Russia. Also, all the NATO communications infrastructure is based on US/Western European technology as are logistics support structures.

possumdag - 09:05pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6110 of 6121)
Possumdag@excite.com

Alex said "... Brits agreed to share some of their wealth with US in exchange for the help against Germany."

Alex seems to be saying that the Yanks weren't so much holding out for the mobil CocaCola plants to be made .. rather for the Brits to 'give them something' in exchange for going into WWII.

Wonder if Vera Lynn was offered in part exchange?

possumdag - 09:20pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6111 of 6121)
Possumdag@excite.com

Bush felt protective toward the younger Putin, who "didn't know what to expect" from international reporters – although Bush knew they would lob "essentially softball questions."

On a one for one basis - Chetneyans v death row - it's 'humanity' that needs protecting :)

gisterme - 09:21pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6112 of 6121)

possumdag wrote ( supposedly quoting gisterme, possumdag 6/26/01 8:16pm ): "...GI said: 'it's up to the government to decide what "acutally matters'..."

That's some pretty creative editing there, possumdag. You've managed to change the whole sense of the statement. :-)

What I really wrote was:

gisterme 6/26/01 6:52pm "...it's up to the government to decide what "acutally matters" when it comes to classified information..."

An editing oversight on your part, no doubt. :-)

I'm out.

almarst-2001 - 09:37pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6113 of 6121)

possumdag 6/26/01 9:05pm

The CocaCola plants came after the Boing and Nrothrop.

I still think the "British incentive" was the main reason to enter the war. And they got to share the Arabic oil regions, didn't they?

The communism was hated by the British the most, even more then Fascism, as the main treat to their colonial holdings. That was the main reason for the immidiate start of the Cold War right after the WWII.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense