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?

rshowalter - 08:38pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8623 of 8643)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

" ``It's an absolute encouragement to the Russians to be obstructionist and to demand more of the president before they give in on this issue,'' said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Comment: Here is a chance to show such positions wrong - with voices like Senator Session's encouraged, on the record, in formats that can be made clearly available for everyone on the internet to see.

" Bush is trying to strike a deal with the Russians to replace the ABM treaty with an arrangement that allows for national missile defense.

" Levin said the provision was a last resort given the Bush administration's failure to tell Congress -- despite repeated requests -- which planned missile defense activities would conflict with the treaty.

" ``This does not give the Russians leverage,'' he said. ``It gives Congress a voice to act responsibly,'' enabling lawmakers to know whether they were supporting treaty violations.

" Warner's amendment to delete the vote was defeated on a party-line vote.

" The $343 billion measure would cover both the Defense Department and defense work done by the Energy Department for the next fiscal year.

" On missile defense, the bill would cut $1.3 billion from Bush's request to increase funding by $3 billion to $8.3 billion. Another party-line vote rejected Warner's attempt to restore $1 billion.

" Despite the cut, Levin said, ``We're giving him the largest increase of probably any program in the defense budget.''

" The House Armed Services Committee last month voted to cut $135 million from the missile defense request.

" In many areas, the committee provided more money than Bush requested, including $700 million to improve compensation and quality of life for service members and their families and $800 million to advance the transformation to lighter, more lethal and capable forces.

" Such additions would be paid for with $1.3 billion from missile defense, $592 million from the troubled V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft program, $247 million from the Joint Strike Fighter and $1.6 billion in savings from better commercial practices.

" As for base closings, the committee approved one round that would be delayed until 2003 to accommodate changes in military forces prompted by ongoing Defense Department strategy reviews, Levin said.

" The procedures would be the same as previous ones, with a special panel selecting the bases and up-or-down decisions by Congress and the president on the entire list.

" Pentagon officials say up to 25 percent of facilities are not needed and billions could be saved by closing them.

" The House committee, hoping to stave off more closings, deliberately omitted mention of them in its bill.

almarst-2001 - 08:38pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8624 of 8643)

In a past 10 years, AFTER the end of a Cold War, the US twice was engaged in a HOT war. The second time it was even without a UN resolution, against all international laws and based on gross falcifications. For the first time since WWII the civilians where and the civilian infrastructure where the main target. The only nation in Europe who staied against Hitler and Stalin, who payed a huge price for fighting the Nazis and saving the American and British pilots where bombed by the sones of those saved pilots.

rshowalter - 08:42pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8625 of 8643)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For adversarial interactions, or deception, such a line of communication would be useless (short term advantage there might be -- long term, deception in such a channel would be punished.)

But for exploring what win-win adjustments might be, this channel could be a very good one -- and especially so if everyone involved was invited in, to state things clearly.

Especially "adversaries" -- who would have a chance to state their case, and even a chance to modify their opinions, as all involved would have a chance to do.

The internet's advantages of increased memory, and increased use to access and organize complexity, could be well used here.

The exchange might also be entertaining to voters, and local news organizations -- serving the interests of the Senators and Representatives, and the public interest as well.

It would be an awkward medium for lying.

rshowalter - 08:46pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8626 of 8643)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst, http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?224@184.4O1UaYMFuKr^151527@354441@.f0ce57b .. , do you and the people you are in contact have any question that there are many good things about America?

Don't you appreciate these, and hope to emulate them, even as you want to eliminate US military agressiveness?

You aren't forgetting the good things about America, are you?

rshowalter - 08:48pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8627 of 8643)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You aren't forgetting some bad things about the Russian past, are you?

I haven't noticed that you were.

The good and bad coexist, are often somewhat independent, and you try to do the best you can, right?

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense