[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7216 previous messages)

oneten0 - 11:30am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7217 of 7227)

Hasn't occurred to anyone that having violated the ABM treaty (a US law, since over two thirds of the senate ratified it) Bush has involuntarily set the stage for his own impeachment? Why not seize the opportunity?

rshowalter - 11:30am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7218 of 7227) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

MD7211 jimmyz211a 7/19/01 10:27am . . "doesn't understand why missile defense should be a threat toward Russia" to see why, one can trace the extensive comments of almarst , this thread's "Putin stand-in" in

MD6837-6839 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:13am

Here is the multipart directory of directories -- Cast of characters -- a " PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (1-10) MD4389 rshowalter 5/31/01 2:51pm

The dialog contains good reasons for Russia's concenr, but also contains a KEY concession for nuclear and total military accomodation. Even full disarmament might be possible (on the "dry run" basis of this thread) but things are "mutually dependent."

Directory-linked lists of distinguished efforts, usually long postings, sometimes interesting references, by almarst_2001: MD4645-4650 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:19am

And a change-clarification in negotiating position in MD4651 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:32am

There's been much work since.

rshowalter - 11:31am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7219 of 7227) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

The summary in MD6839 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:14am reads in part

I've done extensive summaries of this thread, with links in the Guardian Talk thread Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror , starting at #151

(#207) includes this:

" The NYT forums have now reinstalled a search function, after a long time -- and it seems to be the same one the Guardian uses, with search page lengths the same as in these TALK threads.

" The NYT Missile Defense thread is being extensively used, and discussion and controversy are continuing. Main contributers are:

" almarst_2001 , previously almarstel2001 , who, since March 5 has acted as a "Putin stand-in" , and shows extensive connections to literature, and to Russian government ways of thought.

" gisterme , who since May 2nd has acted as a "Senior Bush administration advisor stand in" who shows some plausible connections to the Bush administration.

" Posters ( beckq , cookies ) who, according to the dialog, are the same poster, who I'd interpret as "stand-ins" for former President Clinton since August 2000

" Me, and Dawn Riley, who have been arguing for improved communication, and as much nuclear disarmament as possible within the imperatives of military balances, since September 25, 2000

"Counting search pages, for characters, gives some sense of the participation. Here are the number of search pages for these posters (as of July 10 )

Putin stand-in, Almarst --- 66 search pages.

Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme ----- 59 search pages

Clinton stand-in, beckq, or cookies2 ----- 7 search pages

Dawn Riley - - - - 115 search pages

Robert Showalter - - - - 166 search pages (saturated)

I've contributed the most words to the MD thread, and Dawn the most citations and the most connection to the news.

But the involvement of the "stand-ins" has been very extensive, too, represents an enormous work committment on thier part, and their postings are, I think, very impressive. The involvement of these "stand-ins" continues.

I believe that their work has assisted in the focusing of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about how to make contact with each other before.

This Missile Defense thread is an ongoing attempt to show that internet usages can be a format for negotiation and communication, between staffed organizations, capable of handling more complexity, with more clarity and more complete memory, than could happen otherwise.

I believe that is something relatively new, and useful. I feel that progress is being made, and that impasses that were intractable before may be more tractable now.

nytid12 - 11:33am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7220 of 7227)

The Union of Concerned Scientists say we don't have the technology for missle defense. Maybe we need an alternative defense strategy that is not based on missiles but on reason. Putin is playing the alliance game, based not on fear, but on covetousness of our place as #1, the only superpower.

katiehende - 11:35am Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7221 of 7227)

I can't believe that the Bush administration has the arrogance to assume that it simply can discard a three decade long treaty in exchange for its new version of Star Wars. This complete lack of respect for the Russians demonstrates President Bush's complete ineptness when it comes to foreign affairs. Americans wonder why the Europeans labeled them as arrogant and self-centered, but we should look in the mirror and see what kind of message our president is sending the world. He is trying to create a new world order with the U.S. in the center without taking any consideration for the possible ramifications his actions might cause. I hope the Bush administration's anti-ballistic missile initiative gets creamed in Congress.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (6 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company