[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 (7383 previous messages)

rshowalter - 07:09pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7384 of 7402) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

" Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., criticized Russia even as he stressed that the ABM Treaty should be scrapped as ``a relic of a bygone era.''

" ``While Russia's government is still autocratic and undemocratic, and its war on the Chechen people is an abomination, nevertheless the world is now a long way from the days when the Soviet Union wrapped its tentacles virtually around the globe,'' Helms said.

" Helms insisted no one was bowled over by the Russians.

" ``We are short of Pollyannas in the Bush administration,'' Bolton assured him, adding later, ``We're a group of pretty hardheaded realists.''

" Many missile defense critics, including allies, have worried that it might prompt a new arms race.

" ``The reason the Russians object to this, the reason the Chinese are apoplectic about their 23 missiles perhaps being completely rendered useless by a defensive system, is because they know it alters the balance,'' Kerry said.

" ``If you change a country's perception of its safety, ... aren't you also then inviting them to alter the balance of power in order to secure a greater level of safety?'' he asked.

" ``If their perception is inaccurate, ... it is our task to disabuse them of their misperception,'' Bolton replied.

" Said Biden: ``The bottom line for me is: At the end of the day, are we more or less secure?''

" The United States could violate the ABM Treaty with any of a variety of planned steps, and Feith said a group studying the treaty should make that determination Monday."

rshowalter - 08:13pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7385 of 7402) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

MD6057 rshowalter 6/26/01 7:22am

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right, on balance, under the circumstances. So far, weighing what I've known and believed -- I've always judged that I have. I believe that now.

These days, it seems to me that, if Bill Casey was looking down, he might be smiling. For one thing, I've had a helluva time, and knowing the old pirate, that might cheer him.

But more than that, there was an admonition, an order, that he repeated again and again, when we met. If I had to come in, and things were awkward in various ways, there was one thing, Casey felt, that I had to remember. That was to "preserve infrastructure."

He was very definite about what he meant by "preserving infrastructure." He meant that it was necessary to arrange actions, messages, and pacings, so that adjustments that needed to be made could be made, without unnecessary damage to people and institutions, with people moving at their own pace - in ways that worked for the human organizations, and the sunk investments, in place.

I was told to "come in through the TIMES," and I've tried to do that, and done so making minimal waves -- just setting messages out, and letting people read them, think about them, and check them.

Has it been a waste? If only the past matters, not much but hope has been accumulated. But some things have been hopeful.

rshowalter - 08:14pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7386 of 7402) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

I was glad to be able to have a one day meeting on this thread with becq on September 25, 2000 between MD266 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am and MD304 rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm . I still think the short suggestion MD266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am makes human and practical sense, and the offer of rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm still stands. Did this accomplish anything? Maybe it sowed the seeds of some ideas. Anyway, I think Casey would have approved. He wouldn't have known of the internet channel, dying when he did, but he would have liked it, and approved of the usages. "Outside of channels" in some ways, but plainly "through channels" in some others.

With Dawn Riley, there was a lot of work from September to March, summarized in MD813-818 rshowalter 3/1/01 4:08pm . . . and I set out some motivating background in rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 11:58am . . . and rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 2:07pm

Perhaps after some initiative on the part of the TIMES, MD827 armel7 3/4/01 3:04pm ... there was the first of many hundreds of good posts by the person I've taken to calling this thread's "Putin - stand in" -- almarst . . . MD 829 almarstel2001 3/5/01 12:17am

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (16 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