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 - 05:26pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6182 of 6196)
Possumdag@excite.com

'Reportedly the two programs amount to about $300 billion (I assume that means over a period of years). It seems the president's view is that a shield is more necessary than a sword in today's world' .... be interesting to know how the Carlyle Group (Pop-Bush) will benefit from their newest 'arrangement'.

rshowalter - 05:29pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6183 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6178 gisterme 6/27/01 5:22pm ... taking down those missiles is a very good thing.

rshowalter - 05:36pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6184 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I don't think the missile shield can be any physical threat to the Russians for a long time. President Putin said 25 years, as I recall -- and my guess might be longer than that --

And I don't think Putin is necessarily averse to missile shield work, within the ABM treaty -- giving time to amend it.

There are problems that are interdependent -- and if there's some heat in the discussion -- also some light. Why are these interdependent problems insoluble. They look soluble to me -- in fact -- well on the way to being solved. The US has to convince some people that it is as good, in fact, as it says it is on matter of military behavior.

And it can afford to be.

It can't really afford not to be - the old patterns are becoming prohibitively expensive, from many points of view.

And a coordination of missile defenses makes sense -- to the extent that the defenses are workable, and the need to defend real.

For the money involved, HUGE good could be done to the whole world, and for the security of the US -- probably solving global warming, breaking the back of the energy supply problem, getting desalinization of seawater to close to the thermodynamic limit (maybe 1/50th the energy cost today) and getting a permanent handle of food output sufficient for human nutrition.

With that money, and good cooperation between key parties - the need for missile defense would be far, far less.

rshowalter - 05:40pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6185 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The American West could sure use more water. Lots of other places could, too. The sorts of things that the world MOST needs could be staffed, very largely, by military-industrial complex people who are frustrated and in over their head on missile defense. The Army Corps of Engineers could do a lot. So could the contractors do.

rshowalter - 05:41pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6186 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It ought to be possible to make money doing it - for the contractors - for the world, and as a fair shake for the whole world.

almarst-2001 - 05:41pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6187 of 6196)

Three US Navy Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles (FBM), built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems--Missiles & Space Operations, were successfully launched..........MORE - http://defence-data.com/current/newsindx.htm

B1 may be out of favor... to be relaced by B2 ... and MZ by Trident.

In any event, the main purpose of Ramsfeld's doctrine is to INCREASE the US military FORCE PROJECTION ability. Whether you read it from-left-to-right or right-to-left;)

possumdag - 05:42pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6188 of 6196)
Possumdag@excite.com

Insert Opportunity Cost into browser :)

rshowalter - 05:45pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6189 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And military people should be able to stay busy finding new and better targeted, calibrated ways to kill people. The more ways, the more targeted, the better. All nation states ought to be well defended, and have adequate ability to impose calibrated cost.

Nations would become more secure, and more polite.

As Friedman's recent essay points out -- deterrance doesn't have to mean nuclear deterrance -- and, to work, it doesn't have to be disproportionate.

Nuclear weapons are obsolete, useless menaces, we should take the damn things down . It seems like President Bush just took a good step.

gisterme - 05:45pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6190 of 6196)

possumdag wrote: "...world' .... be interesting to know how the Carlyle Group (Pop-Bush) will benefit from their newest 'arrangement'..."

Has it EVER occured to you, possumdag, that the president's motivation might be EXACTLY WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE and that your estimation of said motivation, your presumption of greed, MIGHT BE WRONG? Of course not. If you did seriously consider that you'd be in for some real self-examination. The prospect of self examination REALLY IS FRIGHTENING for many people. I can see why you might not want to risk that.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense