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?

joker23 - 11:13am Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8314 of 8322)

Bush & Co. are turning the US into a rogue nation. The so-called “Missile Defense” policy seems directly aimed at renewing a worldwide arms race. It is not enough to trash the ABM treaty (some of us remember that the ABM Treaty was designed to prevent "first strike without retaliation" capability) The next treaty in their sights is the CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Offering China carte-blanche nuclear buildup and testing if they drop their opposition to “Missile Defense” will end up with school children being told to put their head between their legs and kiss their ass goodbye as we were in the ‘50s. The GPS homing beacon employed on the target vehicle in the latest rigged “test” of Missile Defense may not be furnished by the rogue nations we are “afraid of”. So Bush & Co. plan on adding $100 Billion dollars to our newborn deficit for a system that cannot work and in the process destroy every bit of security that the world has managed to develop over the last 40 years. Nice.

richr11b - 11:25am Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8315 of 8322)

I can't believe the sheer stupidity of the latest Bush position on China's nukes. I don't mean to be cruel, but it doesn't take a lot of deep thinking to realize that China, who is capable of building ICBM's, and can afford to fund this large a program, will indeed build more and better missiles. On the other hand, North Korea, who cannot fund such a program (at least successfully) will find a cheaper way, like a suitcase.

The US then becomes a laughingstock for spending billions on an unneeded system which does not work, and we now have a real threat in the form of the Chinese.

rgbrasel - 11:52am Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8316 of 8322)
RGBrasel@hotmail.com

Bush to "allow" the Chinese to build up their nuclear arsenal. . . This is but another example of our perceived arrogance overseas. China, simply put, wants to acheive superpower status, which it will eventually do, either through its military, or through its own potential economic power. But to allow China to build up its nuclear forces is something that we have little control over. We don't want to lose the largest potential market for our exports, and if it does come down to a shooting match over Taiwan (which the Chinese view as an internal conflict--it's not the domino effect this time), I seriously doubt that the American people are willing to fight for Taiwan. Iraq and Kuwait were one thing--superior forces, nice videos that whitewashed the massive casualties--but a war in the China Sea would result in casualties not seen since Vietnam.

rshowalter - 11:57am Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8317 of 8322)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Perhaps it is important, militarily and diplomatically, that the US become a laughingstock, all over the world. Perhaps it is important that the "word" of the United States, and of US military officers, comes to be discounted -- and senses of obligation to the United States, among, allies, come to be diluted with mistrust.

Not that that is pretty. But for stability, the rest of the world has to stop deferring to the US, or being intimidated in every way by the US, and handle their own responsibilities themselves.

MD8287 gisterme 9/1/01 6:12am

commented on my MD8282 rshowalter 8/31/01 8:29pm , which includes this:

"the way things are happening, part of me thinks some significant parts of what you administration folks are doing is well crafted.

"You're playing if for total nuclear disarmament, worldwide, with real enforceable teeth, right?

"Some days I wonder, but other days I'm not sure that God himself could play the cards any better for peace.

"The rest of the world was in disarray, and you're getting the world organized, right?

It may not be intentional, but it does seems to me that the rest of the world is getting more organized, and is learning to cooperate together, without depending on the United States.

rshowalter - 12:00pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8318 of 8322)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We are showing the world that our word, short of a signed contract, is not good.

In May 2000, at the U.N. Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States promised to eliminate its nuclear arms.

5 Nuclear Powers Agree on Stronger Pledge to Scrap Arsenals By BARBARA CROSSETTE ..... May 22, 2000

"Five original atomic powers--Britain, China, France, Russia and US--agree for first time to 'unequivocal' elimination of nuclear arms; pledge comes at end of monthlong UN conference of more than 185 nations; Sec Gen Kofi Annan praises agreement as significant step forward in humanity's pursuit of more peaceful world and part of broad agreement to invigorate nuclear arms control (M)

The sentiment behind elimination of nuclear arms remains, worldwide. As the sentiment behind Kyoto remained, after the US withdrew its promised committment.

The US may need to be, not a leader, but a follower in action and ideas here.

Military and diplomatic power depend on credibility - - and insofar as America's "credibility weapons" go -- and these are essential tools of diplomacy and any war requirig allies -- we are seeing extensive and large scale "unilateral disarmament" on the part of the Bush administration.

This is the sort of thing that helps lead the world toward a reframing on matters of military function -- a reframing that is sorely needed.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense