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?

bloodyniall - 05:11pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8275 of 8283)

rshowalter. Speaking as neither a European, Asian or South American, but as a New Zealander (a what?) I would say the current size of the US military is about right if I was trying to disuade the US from increasing it. Otherwise i would say it could easily afford defensively to cut back. This would wreck some havoc on the US economy, all those unemployed soldiers. I also wouldn't do it thinking I could rely on the possibility of the new missile defence system working. However its pretty obvious that the US military doesn't exist for defensive purposes or any apparent offensive purposes, its just there to hold over the rest of the world when negotiating. But who really knows what Bush has got his beedy little Texan eyes on. I'll tell you one thing though if he comes down our way he'll have a pretty hard fight on his hands, I think we might even have a few automatic rifles nowadays.

rshowalter - 05:31pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8276 of 8283)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

" its pretty obvious that the US military doesn't exist for defensive purposes or any apparent offensive purposes, its just there to hold over the rest of the world when negotiating."

If that's what it is for -- how well do the negotiations work? And are they worth $1500 for every man, woman and child in the United States?

In addition to costs and risks for the whole world?

No doubt the US needs a strong military - I think it should be the strongest in the world. But does it have to be that expensive, and that corrupting?

If some of the money now spent on the military was spend solving REAL problems that the world has ( getting a fully adequate energy supply, handling global warming, educating people so the world was richer) there would be plenty of good employment for the military-industrial complex.

If they are going to spend so much for military purposes -- their weapons should work - - and be deployed for reasons both Americans and others can understand.

Otherwise things are corrupting -- something that at least the Marine Corps understands, at least sometimes. As they showed in some recent investigations on the Osprey. That same honorable spirit, and much about US military arrangements would get more rational, and safer for the whole world, pretty quickly.

rshowalter - 05:34pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8277 of 8283)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If America invested $1000 for every man woman and child, every year --in productive projects .. how much richer would we be?

Much richer.

Safer.

Prouder, too.

applez101 - 06:01pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8278 of 8283)

bloodyniall - Welcome! Always regreted never making it to South Island.

I dunno, from New Zealand's POV, it has little to worry about if the missiles start flying - especially if it were to end this unholy dependence on those Aussie convicts! ;-p I mean, Chile's airforce presents more of a threat than the tricky missile trajectory from a Chinese launch. :)

Seriously though, I sincerely hope that New Zealand continues from its strong international stance against nuclear fission in all its forms and knock some reason into its erstwhile American allies.

Also, when are you guys going to press for Kyoto instead of siding in this odd A-NZ-US-Can voting bloc?

bloodyniall - 06:53pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8279 of 8283)

rshowalter post8276.

To be the strongest in the world according to the US Chiefs they have to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Currently I belive they're about 15-20yrs ahead of everyone else in the world this is because they spend more than next 10 (don't qoute me on that number, but it is something similar) biggest spenders compiled. That $1500 for every man women and child in the US mostly goes to research as I understand and they want to cut back on troops and conventional armourments to increase this budget to stay 20yrs ahead of everyone else.

I think you'll find being percieved as the big man on the block greatly helps the US in its negotiations. Whether its worth the cost I don't know, but thats up to whoever is footing the bill.

I agree that the US could or should spend less on the military and although it would be great if the extra was spent helping third world countries out, I think the US could do with it just as well.

bloodyniall - 07:16pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8280 of 8283)

applez101 post8278.

Thats a shame. Its cold right now but very beautiful and the skiing is great.

I don't think we've got to much to worry about either when it comes to missile attacks. But if rshowalter wanted any proof of US using they're military in negotiations, recently there was an article in one of our local newspapers that stated that in the recent visit of I think Powell to Australia the US was looking into entering a free trade agreement with Aus that would exclude New Zealand at the same time there was discussion of a South-East Asian form of NATO also excluding New Zealand. I don't think that the US would be excluding us if we let their ships into our harbours.

You seem to be more up to date with local politics than I am. Last I heard our Foreign Minister had said that New Zealand would not be last on board such an agreement and would continue to take a leading role in the global environmental movement... blah blah blah. Just like in the US we've got businesses here complaining that it will hurt our economy, which is a load of BS here at least. I don't know when they intend to sign it, they might be waiting until the US puts up its knew proposal.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense