Forums

toolbar



 [F] 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?


Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (8371 previous messages)

lunarchick - 04:15am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8372 of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com

"Their headlong, headstrong, irrational and theological desire to build a missile defence sends the wrong message to the Chinese and the whole world." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=91987 US diplomats are trying to convince the Chinese that they are not threatened by the proposed missile shield. They are also willing to accept that China may also want to resume underground nuclear testing – currently banned by a worldwide moratorium.

lunarchick - 04:24am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8373 of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com

Something to smile about?

lunarchick - 04:28am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8374 of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com

POSTOL http://www.google.com/search?q=Postol&btnG=Google+Search http://www.findarticles.com/m1111/1803_301/63842593/p1/article.jhtml

lunarchick - 04:37am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8375 of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com

So who's counting? why Bwsh of course see

lunarchick - 04:41am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8376 of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com

LOOS

'.....the US's $206 billion defence budget is earmarked for the new loos'*

The multimillion-dollar procurement programme echoes the excesses of the Ronald Reagan era, notably a $600 airborne toilet seat the generals of that era ordered. Supporters argued that it was not just a seat but an entire system, able to withstand G forces and sudden decompression that had been intensively tested under diarrhoea and combat conditions.

In published papers heavy with codewords for new potty contraptions to ensure the safe completion of the most basic of human functions, the Pentagon is now looking at a number of different models. The most sophisticated is the air transportable Collectively Protected Expeditionary Latrine, or CPEL.

  • check

    rshowalter - 08:29am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8377 of 8382) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

    Sorry if I post too much. I've been very afraid of the end of the world, for a long time - for reasons, some set out on this thread, that I've found compelling. And tried to communicate, not only on this thread, but through formal channels, as well.

    I've been trying to get some things checked -- and establish the notion that, when it matters enough -- there are some kinds of checking that need to be morally forcing. That's the opposite of the standard now, where checking, if it displeases people in power, can always be subordinated to other values, and always is. I think The New York Times may be the best organization in the world to discuss that point about checking with, especially with respect to the circumstances discussed in this thread.

    rshowalter - 08:30am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8378 of 8382) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

    I continue to be uneasy.

    When the US decides it is "comfortable" with a large expansion of nuclear missiles for China, they ought to consider what China has done, this century. There have been mistakes -- and mass deaths far worse than usual "mistakes" -- in the tens of millions. Even setting aside concerns about the hateful and cruel behavior Chinese have sometimes shown, mistakes, where nukes are involved, can be the death of us all.

    Where missiles, or human controls are involved, mistakes are easy, and many mistakes happen. Reducing the world to a scorched ball, full of rotting unburied corpses. Death, for most, would take days or weeks.

    Nukes, today, could go off like a string of firecrackers, and the end of the world could happen.

    For me, it is a lot easier to imagine this, than to imagine some of the things that have already happened in the world, since January.

    MD6753 lunarchick 7/7/01 10:16pm ... MD6754 lunarchick 7/8/01 12:00am

    I think that, when we consider the world, and how we'd like to change it, it is good to consider the ideas, memories, and news stories associated with this famous picture, of THE POWER OF ONE http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg

    We need to be careful. And only so "trusting," where nukes are concerned, of either ourselves, or others.

    More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Post Message
     Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense







  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company