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?

almarst-2001 - 04:37pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7503 of 7543)

Each one and the combintion of rejected by US treaties just reaffirm that the Power does not need the protection provided by Law. Quite the opposite - it ties its hands.

The US "rulling class" and the Pentagon clearly believes it can and should grab the opportunity to rule the World.

Why should all be concerned? What will they do if the "king" turns out to be not so benevolent as advertised?

The "balance of power" and "checks and balances" are proclaimed to be the most importand virtues of the US political system.

Shouldn't it hold the same internationally?

rshowalter - 04:47pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7504 of 7543)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Yes it should !

And that's becoming more and more clear, in the international community.

The United States is not invulnerable -- it is just, as of now, out of touch with reality. But it seems to me that forces moving to get it more into touch with how much The United States needs international law are getting themselves organized.

Nice to hear from you.

rshowalter - 04:51pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7505 of 7543)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You speak of a

US "ruling class" and a military establishment that may believes it can and should grab the opportunity to rule the World.

But the "ruling class" that you speak of is a small minority -- most of America's dominant people believe in contracts. And as for the military - - it is in an insecure position - because it is trying to work on the basis of ideas that are not supportable.

There are going to be ways of showing that, I think.

rshowalter - 04:53pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7506 of 7543)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Suppose that the US decides that it wants to rule the world. With its current relations with the EU, with Russia, and with China, how does it do so?

rshowalter - 05:28pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7507 of 7543)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Friedman did an interesting piece today, and on the vulnerability that the US has, because of the internet. almarst and I talked about that in March, and after I made a "pitch" that Russia could find non-nuclear deterrants (a 'pitch" I'd like to repeat) , almarst made a very crucial response, that we've talked a lot about since.

MD892 almarstel2001 3/9/01 12:48pm

" Given the current world disballance of conventional power, the nuclear wearpons are the only financially feasible answer of most countries agains owerhelming US conventional military. There is no full who would not understand that. And that is precisely the aim of AMD to remove the last layer of protection from anyone who may potentially come at odds with US policies."

I don't disagree at all about the aim , in the main decision-making circles. But I do think it makes sense to consider the technical capacities of the systems under development, or in prospect.

Maybe Friedman's article is worth considering again -- the US is vulnerable -- and can be deterred -- and missile defense won't change that.

rshowalter - 05:30pm Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7508 of 7543)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And as a practical matter, the US missile defense program, itself, should not threaten Russia -- or anyone else - because it is a fiasco, a mess of ineffectual tricks that, put together, can't work.

(35 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense