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?
(7874 previous messages)
- 04:00pm Aug 14, 2001 EST (#7875
8/14/01 8:58am Doubt that the Taliban will replace the exploded
buddhas with a couple of press button singing humpbacks. Beached
whales don't do well on sand ... their lungs collapse out of water.
A 'kind' solution prescribed for one such beached off South Africa
was to place explosives around it's head and detonate.
Back to the Japanese. Showing how in touch with their feelings
The Japanese PM it seems, took his two children
and gave them to his sister to rear, as he left is first wife -
then six months pregnant. She thinks about her 'two children'
every day of her life. The third child was never seen by the PM.
And when that now PM was campaigning in the town the third child
lives in - the now grown son - politely kept his distance. Saying
he 'would like to meet' his father.
- 04:00am Aug 15, 2001 EST (#7876
The News Hour has just covered the Russian view point from
Alexis of the Duma re MD missile reduction .. on Thursday will cover
- 04:34am Aug 15, 2001 EST (#7877
Helping the world: I was talking to Bill
Mollison today, he's been through Russia a while ago. Regards
Russians as self-sufficient, competent and capable from a
Nutritional and food growing sense. The guy has a great philosopy.
Go to the first world, earn a pot of money, that in turn takes him
through the third world. India for example, where folks can't afford
fees. He's just back from the USA. (Browser gives 735 hits)
- 04:56am Aug 15, 2001 EST (#7878
Miscommunication in Moscow http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/opinion/15WED2.html
"After all the bonhomie between George W. Bush and Russia's
president, Vladimir Putin, the frosty arms talks between American
and Russian officials in Moscow this week were disappointing.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Putin seemed to speak past
each other on the core issues. Mr. Putin sought specific numbers and
timetables on American nuclear arms reductions and missile defense
plans. Mr. Rumsfeld wanted to limit the conversation to vaguely
defined consultations. It was just an opening dialogue, but it did
not augur well for Mr. Bush's and Mr. Putin's declared plan to link
talks on offensive and defensive weapons.
"After the two presidents conferred in Genoa in June, it
appeared that Washington would seek to win Russian agreement to
loosening the restrictions of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty
in exchange for significant reductions in both sides' offensive
nuclear arsenals. That would allow both nations to enhance their
security by eliminating unneeded cold- war weapons and by developing
new missile defenses — without tossing out the ABM treaty, which has
helped preserve the peace.
"Mr. Rumsfeld came to Moscow with a different brief. He seemed
interested in only the broadest consultations, devoid of details. If
that is all Mr. Bush intends, he would be passing up an important
opportunity to achieve his goal of helping both countries move
beyond their cold-war relationship.
"Even by the most optimistic technological assumptions, a
reliable missile defense system is still years away, as are the
threats it is meant to counter. Last month's successful interception
of a dummy warhead was encouraging, but as additional details have
been released, it has become clear that it was far from a realistic
simulation of an enemy attack. A navigation beacon helped guide the
interceptor rocket toward its target, only one decoy balloon
accompanied the dummy warhead and the interceptor's "kill vehicle"
was preprogrammed to distinguish the heat signature of the warhead
from that of the decoy. An actual enemy missile would not make
itself such an inviting target. By the Pentagon's own account, many
technical problems must be solved before even a limited system can
"The Bush administration should be working to promote further
offensive reductions, instead of threatening to withdraw from the
ABM treaty and risk initiating a new nuclear arms race. Washington
and Moscow are no longer military foes. But the risks of plutonium
theft or accidental launch through a breakdown of Russia's crumbling
command and control networks are a real and continuing threat to
"Washington needs to make a more serious effort to negotiate a
deal with Moscow that links the future construction of missile
defenses with immediate reductions in offensive missiles.
- 05:01am Aug 15, 2001 EST (#7879
From the editorial:
A navigation beacon helped guide the
interceptor rocket toward its target, only one decoy
balloon accompanied the dummy warhead and the interceptor's
"kill vehicle" was preprogrammed to distinguish the heat signature
of the warhead from that of the decoy. An actual enemy missile
would not make itself such an inviting target. By the Pentagon's
own account, many technical problems must be solved before even a
limited system can be built.
Working out those points in detail, informed by the Coyle
report, and basic facts of physics and control technology -- makes
it clear that "missile defense" is being grossly oversold.
As a program to guard against threats that can reasonably be
expected it is no defense at all, but a boondoggle.
- 05:23am Aug 15, 2001 EST (#7880
Interesting to note that the CIA inspired Talibhan have a few
folks held - re teaching from the wrong book ... making world news.
Whereas Marshall Islands: a couple of Australians - concerned re
NukeTesting are up for .... ? ... Tresspass! If people are willing
to put themselves in situations (for peace) that may invoke a prison
sentence -- then these guys have strong feelings, regarding a 'safe'
world, that have to be respected. http://www.stopstarwars.org/html/intro.html
New York Times on the Web Forums Science