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?
(7669 previous messages)
- 08:20pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7670
7/10/01 10:14am reads in part:
Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme is represented by ----- 59
and goes on with language along these lines:
The involvement of gisterme represents an
enormous work committment on gisterme's part. Many of
gisterme's postings are, I think, very impressive. I
believe that gisterme's work has assisted in the focusing
of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about
before the give-and-take of this thread began.
So I appreciate gisterme's involvement.
gisterme and I also agree on a number of points about
missile defense, and the related issues of military balances. And it
is the combined effects of interdependent military issues,
considered as a whole, that most concern our "Putin stand-in"
almarst . We agree that the Cold War should be over in all
significant ways -- and that Russia and America should come to
relationships that are more cooperative, and less threatening. I
think we'd say, with different emphasis on matters of detail
gisterme and I also both agree that the administration's
missile defense initiative would be worthwhile, even if missile
defense programs never deployed, or never even worked, if they
decentered terrible nuclear standoffs frozen too long, and moved the
world toward much lower levels of nuclear risk, and much higher
levels of world order and peace, in the interests of all concerned.
The program may indeed be serving that purpose, and serving it
more effectively than anybody involved could have reasonably
But it is doing so by uniting the rest of the world in distrust
for the United States, in fear of the United States, and is
dissipating, to a degree that no one would have guessed a few months
ago, the prestige of the US government, and the US military, world
It seems a very high price to pay - - a near-total, unilateral
surrender and disarmament of one of the strongest assets the United
States has had in the world. I'm speaking of our credibility.
Because the missile defense program is militarily insane, for
technical and diplomatic reasons that are easy to check.
Many on this thread.
. . .
Now, we have the spectacle of a "great power" begging its allies,
and its adversaries, to be permitted to commit a massive, expensive
technical folly, corrupting in very many ways so that it can keep
on spending money, and keep on doing things that no longer make
And when begging fails, bullying them.
- 08:34pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7671
"...But that's wrong...."
Is not! That's a perfect example of what I've been saying
about your apporach to logic, Robert. You just make statements with
no back-up whatsoever. The babble about reflective coatings that
followed is just that. It has nothing to do with your
"that's wrong" statement. You're proving my point about my
opinion of your "sweep it under the rug" approach to facing
facts. Despite your claims of being a techno-whiz you never answer
numbers with numbers...you answer them with emotional rhetoric.
- 08:38pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7672
gisterme , glad to see you on here. I'm finding myself
tired, but you're "calling me" on a point on which I'm quite sure
It there's a mistake, it is a mistake about antecedents. When I
say " that is wrong -- the that I'm referring to is
that intensity of stimulus can't over-ride the geometrical
limitations of what can be hit with given controls.
It that the that you're referring to? If so, this is
surely one matter (among a number) that can be checked.
- 08:42pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7673
Indeed, everything you cited in MD7107 gisterme
7/16/01 9:24pm ... responding to my
"...The lasar approaches can't work at all..."
with : "We'll just have to agree to disagree on that... "
is misleading and wrong -- and I've dealt with the points before.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science