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?
(7187 previous messages)
- 03:31am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7188
Placing the flowers gently on the memorial with her right
She simultaneously kissed a left hand finger
Transporting her kiss
She pressed tenderly on
bronzed plaque name of
her beloved, never forgotten father,
One name of many
Each of a
Each with a story
Each lost to a beloved
downfall of Singapore
Each standing ground
To save their
To keep it free
‘The Good we do today is the happiness of tomorrow’
And with God on their side
‘Fight for the Right’
‘Be mindful of the inhumanity of war
less all tragedy
has been in vain’
Today the local medalled families of the
Sat in Newfarm park around the
to have raised funds that
Refurbished and re-sighted it
The flags of Australia, Britain and Queensland
gently in this open-air tree framed
A soldier raised his bugle playing
‘The Last Post’
And carefully counting time
he held the silence
minute of Remembrance
A gesture to our dead.
Every life has value
yet there's a failure to fix a price. The Eighteen Hundred of
Sandakan are remembered.
The Eighteen Hundred Murdered by the
State in China, these last three months, also have a value, have
beloveds, have a price ...... and pride of place.
Memorial - Malaysia
POW prisoner of war remembers ... A
Minister enhances a nation's memories.
- 04:16am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7189
Alex: Thediggers were
Peace. War is a symptom of poor planning, imperfect negotiation,
and failure leading to chaos.
Are you saying that America - that
country of the most-highly educated - is in need of a lesson re:
negotiating peace ?
- 04:49am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7190
American foreign policy is leading to .... ' imminent
uncontrolled sale of Russian nuclear technology to the third
world. I think many American citizens will regret about this
decision.' ... see Alec m post(above) It's a pity that arms
have a high value - when in reality they are worthless. If Bwsh had
a brain and a conscience he might consider deflecting the flow of
cash from the worthless Shield program, rather, developing plans for
the economic enhancement of countries such as Russia.
and joint-development programs that enmeshed the USA with partners
would assist in stabalising the world.
On Maslow's pyramid of
needs, the basic material needs, of a country such as Russia,
dominate. An opportuntiy exists for trade, commerce and cooperation.
- 05:36am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7191
Attendees include: Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, USA ....
- 06:32am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7192
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
The Arms Trade Resource Center was
founded in 1993 to promote greater public debate regarding the need
to impose controls on the international arms trade.
The Center is supported by grants from the Compton Foundation,
the S.H. Cowell Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the Ruth Mott
Fund, the Ploughshares Fund, Rockefeller Family Associates, and
the Spanel Foundation. This report is an updated and expanded
version of the Institute's February 1994 report, Conflicting
Values, Diminishing Returns: The Hidden Costs of the Arms Trade.
It was written by Institute Senior Fellow William D. Hartung,
with extensive research support by Institute Research Associate
Jennifer Washburn. Foundations.
2000 - background: WHAT IS REALLY
DRIVING THE MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE?
An exchange of ideas
between pro- and anti- NMD analysts
Global Beat Issue Brief No.
59, June 2, 2000
Tautfest: Thank you. My question is to Mr. Gaffney. I wondered
whether you could address the issue that the national missile
defense system will ultimately not work, the technology is not in
place, nor will it ever be? And even if it were in place it could
easily be undercut by short range missiles or by terrorist attacks?
Mr. Gaffney: Sure. I think it is absolutely certifiable that we
can build a missile defense that will destroy not only incoming
reentry vehicles but decoys and all manner of other chaff and things
intended to ensure that the warheads penetrate. ... ... ...
Halloran: Jim Wolf.
Wolf: Aloha Dick. Frank Gaffney, I would like to follow-up on Mr.
Hartung's charge that your Center for Security Policy receives
roughly 25% of its annual revenue from corporate sponsors, virtually
all of them arms manufacturers. Is that accurate?
Mr. Gaffney: No.
Wolf: What is the right percentage?
Mr. Gaffney: Last year it was about 9% from companies that are
involved in aerospace or defense. It has varied from year-to-year,
and it has sometimes been as high as I think 10% to 15%. We do
receive larger percentages from corporate sponsors, but not all of
them are in the defense and aerospace business. .......
- 06:49am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7193
Bats do it!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science