[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 (7448 previous messages)

lunarchick - 08:22am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7449 of 7469)

Professor Alan Roberts (International Relations Oxfd) talking with nbr, noted the reluctance of America to adopt treaties along with it's allies. He spoke of America as regarding the rest of the world as hateful, sinful, a bunch of layabouts - a view point beautifully illustrated here : levin81 7/23/01 1:06am

lunarchick - 08:36am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7450 of 7469)

Back to that $1500 per head per year - every year - year-in year-out - expenditure on Defence.

Mystro a drum roll for these big-ticket items in procurement for the military industrial complex:

    F-22 Fighter
    Joint Strike Fighter
    C-17 Transport Aircraft
    Osprey Aircraft
    RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
    Crusader Artillery System
    NSSN New Attack Submarine ("Virginia" Class)
    Ballistic and National Missile Defense (BMD)
Reading from the page - the same page everyone - can anyone pick 'winners' from the above ?

rshowalter - 08:52am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7451 of 7469) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Not a single one of them is worthwhile from the viewpoint of a reasonable United States citizen, unconnected with the military or military contractors. The aircraft are not needed to respond to any credible threat -- and with advances in radar that are now either in place or possible, none are even viable. The Osprey is grossly defective. We don't need another submarine for either defensive or offensive purposes -- though the Navy and the contractors may want it.

We have good artillery now -- and as I remember, the Crusader may be being phased out -- a good decision.

NONE of the above are projects that American citizens are enthusiastic about -- the military doesn't even bother to "sell" them very hard.

Missile Defense is different. It makes sense to people -- it promises something people would like to have. But it doesn't work technically, and can't -- and it is associated with prohibitive diplomatic and financial costs.

No winners in the list above -- except for the contractors.

rshowalter - 08:54am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7452 of 7469) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

lunarchick 7/26/01 8:22am There is a faction of "conservative" opinion in the United States, backed by many in the federal government, that holds the rest of the world, including American allies, in contempt.

MD7315 rshowalter 7/23/01 7:24am

" to the extent that the US takes positions, practical and moral, such as the one expressed in a place where US government involvement is to be presumed, in FLYING INTO TURBULENCE by Peter Martin the United States will be showing the world that it does not deserve a leadership role where either moral or practical judgement is concerned. If Martin's sort of view is the kind that the United States shows in words and action, the rest of the world, with plenty of checks and balances available to it, will act on that knowledge.

But the administration is more diverse than that, and gisterme expressed a desire for accomodation on this thread that was interesting, and in some ways hopeful. MD5617 gisterme 6/20/01 10:14pm .

" People don't just automatically know how to get along with each other, especially those from different cultures...they have to learn. It seems the same is true with nations.

" If there is to be "accomodation" it must be bilateral. That's called cooperation. No sense of unilateral boot-licking or condesension comes to mind with the term "cooperation". Wouldn't you agree, Robert? "

I would.

Something else may come harder. What about questions of fact?

Can missile defense work? As a technical matter?

Reasonable conduct depends on right answers about this, among other things, and accomodations that seem "beautiful" on the basis of wrong assumptions may be ugly, instead.

The United States needs to show respect for the intelligence of the the human beings who are its citizens, and for other people in the world, and come to accomodations on the basis of facts, not patterns that are, in Friedman's phrase, "theology".

lunarchick - 09:11am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7453 of 7469)

Defence $'s >> community alternatives <<

lunarchick - 09:20am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7454 of 7469)

Japan - Sony - fall in profits .... Japanese economy is down .. a good time for Whale Watchers to put boycott pressures on them.

JapanWhaling 1 2 Tourists-Perth

lunarchick - 09:28am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7455 of 7469)

Russia Kyoto

The move towards 'clean' air within nations will be good for the world. Rogue countries may be reluctant to join such agreements. To their techological detriment. The answer may be for all countries to be measured against an agreed national index. Then in the same way that looks at honesty v graft and corruption, an index re ecology could be established.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (14 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