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?
(7721 previous messages)
- 07:40pm Aug 2, 2001 EST (#7722
Military expenditures on unworkable junk are against the national
interest, from a VERY wide range of points of view. ....The ladies,
gentlemen, and other ranks working on the space and ground based
lasar programs could be doing much more useful work. .... and the
Bush administration would get much more credit doing useful things .
7/9/01 1:20pm ... MD6799 rshowalter
7/9/01 1:43pm ... MD6801 rshowalter
7/9/01 2:07pm .... MD7684 rshowalter
7/9/01 12:41pm responded with a laugh when I suggested some
checking should happen. It isn't necessary for anybody to believe me
or anybody else, on the key evidence. People can look for themselves
7/9/01 1:13pm . .. .
Jounalists in other countries are laughing also. Laughing at the
Bush administration. This was in The Moscow Times , Chris
Floyd's Global Eye http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/08/03/107.html
" Remember the "successful" test of America's
"missile defense" system last month, when a prototype rocket shot
down a mock warhead in flight? Remember the reams of triumphant PR
from the White House and Washington's corps of sycophantic
pundits? The test was "proof positive," they said, that "missile
defense works." Opponents of Bush's $300 billion welfare program
for wealthy defense contractors had been "morally disarmed" by
this "resounding success."
" It looks like the cheerleaders shook their
pom-poms too soon. Last week, the Pentagon confessed that its Buck
Rogers whizbangery had in fact been guided by a homing beacon
placed on the target itself, Reuters reports.
Comment: there was also a MAJOR failure of the radar,
indicating that the system was up against very serious computational
limits in its programming -- limits that probably rule out any
ability of the system to hand realistic decoys, or even chaff.
" The somewhat bristly brass insisted that the
handy-dandy tracking device had only put their missile in the
"general vicinity" of the target — but they also admitted that a
"rogue state" launching a surprise attack would probably not
include such helpful guides on their own warheads.
" Undeterred by this dearth of deterrence, Bush
and defense chief Donald "Darth" Rumsfeld are now finalizing plans
for "projecting dominance through space," The Observer reports.
Dub and Rummy are resurrecting Reagan's old "Star Wars" scheme of
space-based laser weapons and a constellation of more than 4,000
lethal satellites — presumably to ward off "rogue aliens" like
Jabba the Hut.
- 07:42pm Aug 2, 2001 EST (#7723
The space-based lasar weapons cannot work. The most
essential other parts of "missile defense" can't work either.
These things can be shown (up to the enumeration of "miracles) in
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 sense.
And when begging fails, bullying them.
The Bush administration is dissipating, to a degree that no one
would have guessed a few months ago, the prestige of the US
government, and the prestige of the US military, world wide.
This is 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. MD7670 rshowalter
gisterme , who raised an elementary and crucial issue
about lasar weapon targeting, and who clearly represents the Bush
administration MD6826 rshowalter
7/10/01 8:11am . . should answer the question of clarification
in MD7672 rshowalter
7/31/01 8:38pm ... and respond to the points in
8/1/01 3:00pm ... MD7713 rshowalter
8/1/01 3:34pm ... MD7715 rshowalter
- 08:11pm Aug 2, 2001 EST (#7724
Rice Aims for New Russia Framework by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
It seems to me that National Security Advisor Rice is
talking about some pretty sensible stuff.
When the technical capability of the US missile defense program
is seen to be as small as it is , and the technical capability of
Russia to counter what the US can do is seen to be as large as it is
- - why not an accomodation that includes permission for some
"missile defense" ?
- - - - - -
Rice's arguments don't completely deal with ways and means to
really end the Cold War - - but are consistent with the ways
and means that would be needed.
To really end the Cold War, the United States would have
to work itself through some fictions.
That may take a while. Accomodations along the way might make
plenty of sense.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science