Missile Defense

Minds are opening to the possiblility that the US may be fallible. Outside the US, and in America, as well. I take that as a good sign, for the sake of the world, and the United States itself. . . . . . Pollution deal leaves US cold by Charles Clover in Bonn http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/24/wkyot24.xml

" Margot Wallstrom, the European environment commissioner, said: "We can go home and look our children in the eyes. Something has changed in the balance of power between the United States and the EU."

Perhaps a time is coming where it will be possible to get some key things checked.

I believe that there are real chances for real peace, including nuclear disarmament, and that the world may be tending in that direction. My first posting on the NYT - Science - Missile Defense Thread occurred on September 25, 2000, and involved an all day forum conference with becq . The suggestions I opened with, though incomplete, still make sense to me.

A key point is that we may get further, in our interactions, if we work with the distrust we naturally have, rather than deny it, or act to evade it.
MD266 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am ... MD267 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:33am
MD268 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:35am .... MD269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:36am

That discussion ended with an offer that still stands.
MD rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm

rshowalter - 06:45pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8070 of 8103)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

wrcooper 8/23/01 5:39pm:

" Then again, it could be just about filling the feeding troughs for the military industrial complex. However, they could find other programs besides NMD to accomplish that goal, so they must think that NMD is needed somehow. "

I'm not sure the military really HAS anything else as politically saleable as missile defense.

I believe that they are struggling, and struggling hard, to find justifications for their continued existence.

rshowalter - 08:49pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8071 of 8103)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD7450 lunarchick 7/26/01 8:36am . . . MD7451 rshowalter 7/26/01 8:52am

Back to that $1500 per head per year - every year - year-in year-out - expenditure on Defence.

Mystro a drum roll for these big-ticket items in procurement for the military industrial complex:

F/A-18E/F Fighter
F-22 Fighter
Joint Strike Fighter
C-17 Transport Aircraft
V-22
Osprey Aircraft
RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter
Crusader Artillery System
NSSN New Attack Submarine ("Virginia" Class)
Ballistic and National Missile Defense (BMD)

Reading from the page - the same page everyone - can anyone pick 'winners' from the above ?

Not a single one of them is worthwhile from the viewpoint of a reasonable United States citizen, unconnected with the military or military contractors. The aircraft are not needed to respond to any credible threat -- and with advances in radar that are now either in place or possible, none are even viable. The Osprey is grossly defective. We don't need another submarine for either defensive or offensive purposes -- though the Navy and the contractors may want it.

We have good artillery now -- and as I remember, the Crusader may be being phased out -- a good decision.

NONE of the above are projects that American citizens are enthusiastic about -- the military doesn't even bother to "sell" them very hard.

Missile Defense is different. It makes sense to people -- it promises something people would like to have. But it doesn't work technically, and can't -- and it is associated with prohibitive diplomatic and financial costs.

No winners in the list above -- except for the contractors.

lunarchick - 09:03pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8072 of 8103)
lunarchick@www.com

..... and the winning contractors include ?

No. Surely not those the President's Father has a direct interest in - surely not!

Not Carlyle !! ?

rshowalter - 09:18pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8073 of 8103)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD903 rshowalter 3/9/01 7:30pm

Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm by By LESLIE WAYNE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

lunarchick - 09:42pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8074 of 8103)
lunarchick@www.com

The hint below

today would readily agree that behaviour of birds is far more complex than has ever been thought

suggests that if the complex behaviour of birds is not understood - how difficult then to comprehend man.

(29 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense