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?
(7473 previous messages)
- 08:07pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7474
Russie est fragile.
Top U.S. finance and trade officials on Thursday praised
Russia's economic reform efforts and said they would work hard to
turn promises of cooperation into actions.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and U.S. Commerce
Secretary Don Evans said Washington would do everything it could
to aid Russia's ascension
to the World Trade Organization, which President Vladimir
Putin has named as a top priority.
- Jackson-Vanik amendment denies Russia most-favored-nation
trading status in the United States
"We are designing a global solution to a global overcapacity
of steel. We want everybody to play a very positive role in
finding a positive solution," Evans said. A point to note is
Bwsh is talking about the virutes of FREE TRADE re G8 and poor
countries - after 'protecting' the USA steel industry.
Defence - MoscowTimes.
- 08:14pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7475
on his way
... rail travel affords photo opportunities.
- 08:36pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7476
/Special Report / The Conflict in
- Mayor - Zhidkov, 45, a native of Grozny, fills a position
Zhidkov had been picked, in part, because he had kept his
reputation clean. "We had to identify a person Ö who wouldn't be
directly or indirectly associated with the circles that
compromised themselves in the last decades," Kadyrov told
- 08:48pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7477
New York Times on the Web Forums - News Forums - Politics
Issue of the Week: Missile Defense and Arms Cuts started on
the 23d, and has ~ 400 postings in the last four days. I've read
about half way through, and found #204 guitarzen
"Issue of the Week: Missile Defense and Arms Cuts" 7/25/01
12:03pm very good.
- 08:54pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7478
# May be
interesting links here: http://www.tribune.atfreeweb.com/intlinks.htm
Canadians - Globalisation G8: overkill
- 09:00pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7479
From the thread: (concludes re grab from dollar churn)
Eisenhower quote: "Every gun that is made, every
warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed - those who are cold
and not clothed."
But we've spent $45 billion on star-wars systems
and $95 billion on total missile-defense efforts since Reagan
embraced the idea, with little beyond failed tests to show for it.
"Let's get real, we all know that if anyone ever
attacks America, the bomb is going to be delivered by a suitcase,
a car, a truck, or in a boat. It's not going to come from a
missile, because you can track where a missile comes from and
retaliate. We all know that we're lobbying for these programs
because they make us money. We don't care whether they'll ever
work, or even be useful. We care that the dollars come our way."
Let's leave aside the endless reasons why national
missile defense will never work. Leave aside all the ways that -
even if it did - it would only undermine hard-won arms-control
treaties, destabilize global politics, move us back toward nuclear
confrontation, and squander more than $200 billion of resources
that could otherwise provide health-care, hire teachers, rebuild
our communities, or protect our environment. Do we have the
political honesty, like the Lockheed Martin employee who spoke
out, to acknowledge that this entire proposal may be largely about
political payback? The true shield it's designed to create would
not protect people and communities. But it would protect the
massive profits of the companies that build it - whatever the
costs to the rest of us.
by Paul Rogat Loeb
- 09:10pm Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7480
Posting the header-blurb from this politics thread:
Issue of the Week: Missile Defense and Arms
Cuts President Bush and President Vladimir Putin of Russia agreed
this week to enter into simultaneous talks on American plans to
deploy a missile defense system and the prospect of large cuts in
both nuclear arsenals. If an accord is actually reached, it could
take the place of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. One
objective of the administrationís engagement with the Russians is
to persuade skeptical European leaders as well as the lawmakers in
Washington that American-Russian relations are on a firm footing,
and that the development of an antimissile shield will not lead to
a new cold war. For their part, the Russians wish to engage the
Americans to limit the scope of the Bush administration's
antimissile program and to pin Mr. Bush down on the bold cuts in
strategic arms that he has promised in vague terms but has yet to
specify. The key question remains whether Washington and Moscow
are willing to actually make the concessions on arms issues to
cement an understanding. Share your thoughts on the latest
Shows everyone is looking for the overt, when, stopping STEEL
DUMPING - Trade was the magnetic nuts&bolts issue. It often
comes back to trade - trade/commerce/industry - jobs employment -
Maslow's shelter and food - the basics!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science