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?
(7078 previous messages)
- 10:03am Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7079
But the Bush administration is also engaging in dialog. And as
the dialog goes on - its missile defense actions, however bad they
may be from a contractual point of view -- are not physically
threatening anyone who does not over-react to the objective
situation -- because the missile defense program is not a reasonable
physical threat to anyone or anything -- and won't be for the
The Coyle Report
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW 10 August
2000 . . . . http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf/nmdcoylerep.pdf
makes clear how terribly inadequate the missile defense progam
is, at the level of simulations, and in many other technical areas.
7/14/01 1:14pm ... MD7044 rshowalter
Pentagon report reveals flaws in missile defense by John
F. Tierney, 7/10/2001 The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/191/oped/Pentagon_report_reveals_flaws_in_missile_defense+.shtml
" NOT TOO LONG ago, the Pentagon's purchase of
$400 hammers and $640 toilets raised eyebrows in Congress and
among the public. Yet few people claimed those deluxe hammers
couldn't cleanly hit their targets - most likely overpriced nails.
And the toilets were said to flush with exquisite efficiency.
" Not so the Pentagon's latest folly - an
obscenely expensive but flawed missile defense system the Bush
administration appears determined to deploy as early as 2004, even
though the individual who was charged with evaluating its
readiness has declared that it will not be ready, even in a
limited form, until 2011.
Tierney is speaking conservatively -- and so was Coyle, who wrote
The Coyle Report: (Coyle was Director: Operational Test and
Evaluation, Department of Defense) NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW 10 August 2000 . . . . 69 very
interesting, technically detailed pages. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf/nmdcoylerep.pdf
The idea that our missile defense program is capable of
defending anything , now or for years to come, is simply
That leaves plenty of time for talk, and reasoning, and
persuasion. I wish the administratin were more diplomatic than it is
-- but the physical threats are negligible, and likely to
remain so, and that should be remembered.
- 03:08pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7080
US plans for a national missile defense system
CALPURNIA: Caesar, I never stood on ceremonies, Yet now they
fright me. There is one within, Besides the things that we have
heard and seen, Recounts most horrid sights seen by the watch. A
lioness hath whelped in the streets; And graves have yawn'd, and
yielded up their dead;
Fierce fiery warriors fought upon the clouds, In ranks and
squadrons and right form of war, Which drizzled blood upon the
Capitol; The noise of battle hurtled in the air, Horses did
neigh, and dying men did groan, And ghosts did shriek and squeal
about the streets.
O Caesar! these things are beyond all use, And I do fear
from Julius Ceasar by William Shakespeare
- 03:56pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7081
Direct hit, Robert. Will the MIRACLES never cease? Also, four
boomers standing down...that's potentially another 96 tall-boys off
one side of the MAD scale...bet it makes no difference at
whatsoever. I believe that's a balance that hasn't mattered for
years. Perhaps the sky's not falling after all... :-)
- 03:57pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7082
The missile defense threat itself is negligible -- but it is
decentering international relations powerfully. On the surface, the
program, which cannot work in any significant military way, against
any significant threat, seems to be acting fundamentally against US
But perhaps, whether by intention or not, the changes that are
occurring are building conditions for a workable, balanced peace.
There are things to say against Henry Kissinger - his stances,
and those of his proteges, can, in Thomas Friedman's words, "make
Machiavelli sound like one of the Sisters of Mercy." MD7048 rshowalter
7/15/01 10:51am ...
But to some degree, the amount of power that America has taken,
that Kissinger took, was taken to prevent chaos -- based on a
refusal or inability of other nations to take workable, disciplined
positions that maintained a balance of power. In Europe's Chance
in the Mideast by GEOFFREY WHEATCROFT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/opinion/16WHEA.html
Kissinger's quoted as saying "that that he would take "Europe"
seriously when it had a telephone number he could call in a
crisis." Now, there are signs that the EU is uniting -- earning
the right to be taken seriously.
And other nation states are uniting -- in ways that may make
"consultation" between the US and other nations real, after a period
where they have often been little more than pro forma.
Russia is sorting herself out, getting into closer relations with
europe, and sorting out major differences with China. The weakness
of the ideas behind NATO are being made clear. The irrationality of
conflict between Russia and China is being made clear. And the
extraordinary ease with which countries can counter the
"threats" from the US missile defense program is being made clear.
There are plenty of reasons to ask for more human decency - but
conditions where negotiations between nations that are part of
workable power exercising systems are coming into being. If most
nations want conditions of peace -- and that seems a clear trend --
then the US desire to fund and justify its military-industrial
complex beyond all reason may not stand in the way.
The following story is big news - and not only for missile
New York Times on the Web Forums Science