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?

rshowalter - 08:07am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7807 of 7904)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I have to drive to a family gathering, and will be off the web for much of the next week.

I've made extensive postinge here, and they can be seen by reading the references in MD7596 rshowalt 7/30/01 7:04am

Before I leave, I'd like to repeat part of MD7778 rshowalter 8/8/01 3:14pm which connects to extensive conversations, with a representative of the pro-missile defense position, that show that much of the technical core of current missile defense is far-fetched, and that this can be shown, clearly, and in public, from information available in the open literature. DOD might claim "miracles" -- but it would have to claim many of them, and far fetched ones, too.

"The weaponization of space is a big international issue, and technical facts and relations involved here matter. There are some similar technical issues, connected to "smart rocks" or "brilliant pebbles" that also matter. Many of the issues involve "tiresome" relationships between tasks and numbers -- things that take some attention to detail.

MD7713 rshowalter 8/1/01 3:03pm ... MD7714 rshowalter 8/1/01 3:34pm
MD7722 rshowalter 8/2/01 7:40pm .... MD7723 rshowalter 8/2/01 7:42pm
MD7724 rshowalter 8/2/01 8:11pm ...

To really end the Cold War, the United States would have to work itself through some fictions.

Senator Daschle's positions seem to be moving the political discourse in a direction where that working through may be possible.

mateljx - 10:05am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7808 of 7904)

Mr. Daschle simply is looking backward when it comes to missile defense. The U.S./Soviet standoff no longer exists and arrangements adapted for the world of 1972 are today as appropriate as thirty-year-old calculators or television sets. The U.S is currently in a very secure position, but we need to be ready when this situation changes - if nuclear missiles become more commonly spread across the globe. I want my country to address tomorrow’s threats, not yesterday’s, and we have to begin working on tomorrow's solutions today.

It was not the presence of nuclear weapons alone that created stability during the Cold War. It was also uncertainty. Antagonists could never reasonably assess the consequence of an aggressive action or threat and as long as nuclear technology remained in the hands of big powers with a lot to lose from a confrontation. Technology is changing this equation. We face a new world with many players, not all of whom have the same decision criteria or perceive that they have as much to lose. I want to create doubts in the minds of potential agressors. Maybe their threat will not work. Missile Defense does not have to be perfect to do this. It just has to create the same uncertainty for little agressors as the former system did for the big ones.

John Matel (johnmatel@yahoo.com)

johnephland - 10:30am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7809 of 7904)

Unfortunately, the Pentagon cannot be trusted. If it lies to us about the missile defense tests it conducts, which are fraudulent in order to encouraging investment, how can we trust it with the massive amounts of taxpayer dollars necessary to play this dangerous game that lines the pockets of key individuals. Sorry, but a missile defense program continues to undermine the safety and security of the United States rather than increase it. The Democrats limited investment is a hypocritical compromise.

bilbobaggins0 - 10:31am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7810 of 7904)
Bush is NOT my president.

mateljx 8/9/01 10:05am

New Missle defense is a monumental waste of taxpayer against a foe that does not exist.

Cutting the fat from the military, making it leaner and meaner is what is needed, not pie-in-the-sky star wars programs that will most likely blow up in our face.

throbar - 10:37am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7811 of 7904)

Daschle should have to register as the lobbyist for foreign powers and have to reapply for US Citizenship. Within the democrats(small case intended) quest for non-partisan politics we have reached a new low where the United States interests and the welfare of the people come in secondary to the liberal agenda. The true democratic parties agenda is to gain power over the people and subvert their individual rights and freedoms. Daschle go home wherever that country may be.

bilbobaggins0 - 10:39am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7812 of 7904)
Bush is NOT my president.

throbar 8/9/01 10:37am

It's the repugs who want to stomp on our freedoms of religion and speech - and create a xian state, while playing whores to corporate elite pimps.

ninglish - 10:50am Aug 9, 2001 EST (#7813 of 7904)

In the case of global warming, administration officials say, for example, that the pact would endanger the American economy and harm global financial health.

So what does this mean? that the administration is more concerned about the health of their wallets than the health of their people?

(91 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense