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?

rshowalter - 04:00pm Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6854 of 6861)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://disclosureproject.org/ cited in julio20 7/10/01 1:58pm is partial to UFO related explanations -- but entirely down-to-earth explanations that give great cause for concern may fit better. The idea of "new and dangerous weapons - now totally secret" doesn't bother me too much - - the military industrial complex, especially this decade, has acted too much like "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight" for me to believe in such super-weapons.

But concerns about patterns, involving subversion of the constitution, and a lot of money -- have been discussed on this thread for a long time -- and they don't involve UFO's -- they involve nuclear policy, and the US way of fighting the Cold War - since Eisenhower's time.

gisterme's first posting on this thread, MD2997 rshowalter 5/2/01 1:41pm ... was about that. gisterme asked:

" Okay, Robert, I'll bite. What are the lies, the missteps and who is the very small extraconstitutional group? "

I answered, generally in MD2999 rshowalter 5/2/01 1:41pm

Lies:

The United States, from the time of the Eisenhower administration on, had a policy of threatening - in effect, scaring, the Soviet Union into a situation where long-term collapse of the Soviet Union would occur. The Russians were vulnerable to this, and we knew it. We scared them to the edge of paralysis, and put their system under pressure that, over years, they could not withstand.

To do that, there had to be a great deal of deception and manipulation in our dealing with the Soviets -- it was in our interest to let them feel that we were, continuously and actively, plotting first strikes -- something that they did believe.

To make the strategy work, the United States government also had to overstate, continuously and often radically the extent of the Soviet threat to both the American people and to Congress, which, very, very often, funded the US defense system under false pretenses. ( The Soviet postion, monstrous as the society was in many ways, was usually defensive --- we were practically never "outgunned" any militarily significant way, from 1955 on. )

There were many lies involved with this policy. Perhaps they were lies in a good cause, and justified. But a tremendous amount of deception, over long duration, and much manipulation of Americans in ways inconsistent with American ideals and institutions.

Missteps:

There were a number of missteps, but I feel this one was the largest: .... When the Soviet Union did collapse, we did not turn our nuclear threats off, and the Russians have been near-paralyzed, as a result of psychological warfare that should have been ended, since.

(more)

almarst-2001 - 04:02pm Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6855 of 6861)

'Rogue' threat? -- Missile ranges fall short of U.S. shores.

Why the US may want to rush the MD project?

For two possible reasons:

1. While so called "rogue" states or, simply, the nations on a Pentagon target list, can't hist back the US yet, they can retaliate against US military bases and most NATO puppies. The perspective of such retaliation may cause a major resistance to the future "humanitarian" bombings or "Gulfers"-like coalitions. By providing the perception of credible missile defence coupled with a tread to attack those "rogues" anyway, the US will force the Europe to accept the "protection" of a "big brother". And cement the NATO and US domination.

2. The MD sensorial infrastructure will enable to instantly increase the MD's protection shield (or at least create a hardly verifiable perception of), against China and Russia.

By the way, on a recent Russian TV niews they reported a massive construction of a new bomb shelters in Moscow.

The most perverting in a pro-MD logic is a "hope" the MD will cause the REDUCTION in nuclear deterrent arsenals. No joke!?

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense