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?
(7455 previous messages)
- 09:44am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7456
Linking of MD with mutual reductions in Nuclear weapons.
RICE gave a press briefing - How and when USA goes ahead with MD.
No numbers on the table re the weapons USA will give up.
Moscow dialogue is ONE sided - USA laying down it's policy. EU
and Russia combined against it.
New US Russia relationship - friends and allies - no longer the
enemy. 1972 agreement is seen by USA as out of date - and USA
intends to do as it likes.
Mood - getting to know you, cautious friendlyness.
The chemistry (Bwsh-Putin) is right, Russia in a weaker barganing
Dialogue or one sided statement of intent by USA? (Russians think
there is some dialogue).
Moscow needs to cut a deal, can't afford to maintain arsnel ..
but wants to have strategic levels cp to USA to be considered a
1997 was start of Nuclear reductions.
Bwsh admin prepared to go below 2000 weapons .. this is better
than Clinton. ABM treaty is the only area by which Russia can pay.
Washington needs to cut a deal - EU expects, the USA science
(my notes - BBC Newshour)
My view: if Russia wants to cut numbers of unstable weapons - why
not just do so, rather than look for a one-for-one with the USA, and
'have' to accept StarWars. Must be 'something more' that Russia
expects from this negotiaton !?!
- 09:54am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7457
"ABM treaty is the only area by which Russia can pay."
that's NOT true.
If the objective is safety , that is, a large, clear
reduction in the risk to American citizens from nuclear weapons,
Russia holds strong cards. She can talk to the "rogue states" of
Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea much more effectively than the US
can, and in significant ways has a stronger relationship with the EU
on these issues (and that trend is growing.)
Russia has ties with China that differ from our own, but that are
stronger in some important areas.
In addition, Russia's technical, commercial, and military
potential is, putting it mildly, not negligible.
If the objective is increased security for the United States and
the rest of the world, Russia has a lot to offer -- and after the
last few months, the Bush administration ought to know it.
- 09:59am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7458
In addition, Russia has enough of an independent position that it
can actually insist on, and actually get, some technical truths
established, and some historical truths established. Over the entire
Eurasian continent, and in Africa, people listen carefully to things
Russia says -- not deferentially, but to a great enough extent that
things may be checked.
If Russia argues in a way that is not only in her own interest,
but in the interest of other nations, she may hold "strong cards"
America, of course, holds "strong cards" too. But it has been
almost miraculous, in recent months, how badly "the play of the
hand" has gone for America, if she is judged in "the court of
public opinion" world wide.
- 10:11am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7459
The something more may be US-Russia economic deals:
New US ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow will make all
efforts to increase the collaboration between Russia and the USA
- 10:15am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7460
Some progress since before the election, and some ideas that
still have wide support:
A major effort to get the candidates to talk about nuclear
policy, and reductions, was made by the Global Security
Institute MD372 rshowalt
Many distinguised americans were involved, including McNamara,
who signed the appeal MD374-5 rshowalt
10/4/00 5:08am , and adressed a meeting that, somehow the
campaigns found a way to ignore. MD376-7 rshowalt
" The current hair-trigger alert deployment of
nuclear weapons directly threatens voters’ personal security while
unprecedented opportunities for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals with
Russia could provide more safety. Despite their impact on all
Americans, the burning nuclear issues facing America and the next
president have not been adequately addressed by the candidates.
Although some vague proposals on missile defense have been
mentioned, neither campaign has articulated its position on the
contradiction between the formally stated U.S. policy of relying
on nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and the U.S.’s legal
commitments – reiterated as recently as May 19 2000 at the United
Nations – to work for the global elimination of nuclear arms."
Well, the Bush administration is working on it -- and key issues,
involving both ideas and facts, are being discussed. That's
happening in the US, in Russia, and all over the world.
People are paying attention, and that, in itself, reduces the
risk of world destruction.
There's time to get things right, and get things understood.
Maybe good things are happening.
- 10:21am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7461
Risk: like winning the lottery ... the 2000 x 2nations missiles
left in situ may wrongly 'blow' .. so, taking them 'out' would be
New York Times on the Web Forums Science