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 - 01:11pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8699 of 8708)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Do American patterns now endanger the world?

Many of the patterns that the elite members of CSIS regard as most beautiful are exemplified, I believe, in the NUNN-WOLFOWITZ TASK FORCE REPORT: INDUSTRY "BEST PRACTICES" REGARDING EXPORT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS http://164.109.59.52/library/pdf/nunnwolfowitz.pdf . . . but are these the patterns we need now, or the patterns we need to get away from?

Here is Ted Turner's statement on January 8, 2001, announcing the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Turner personally stands for the complete elimination nuclear weapons, and makes that clear. And he has committed 250 million dollars to the effort -- a huge sum, compared to other sums available from foundations - for the cause of peace.

.. Press Statement by Ted Turner Announcing the Nuclear Threat Initiative http://www.unfoundation.org/unfnews/other/turner_20010111.asp

Are Turner's hopes impossible, now, because he is asking for things that are "impossible" of the American establishment CSIS represents?

When a man does a wonderful, generous thing, he has some reason to expect that he'll be praised. (There is a nice scene about that, when Rick is generous, in Casablanca . )

Since January 8, Turner has been afflicted. And, still today, the Nuclear Threat Initiative has not set up a web site, and when I asked for their mission statement, I got the distinct impression that they didn't have any definition of what they were about, and had to take time to write it. Whenever it was written, their mission statement is a beautiful one: MD8426 rshowalter 9/4/01 11:11am

“ To strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. We will also work to build the trust, transparency, and security which are preconditions to the ultimate fulfillment of the Nonproliferation Treaty's goals and ambitions.”

But is it possible for that committment to be honored in America, without a willingness to admit that some basic American ways of dealing with military matters are going to have to change?

My own view is that some basic admissions are going to have to be made by people who have worked, their whole lives long, to harden their hearts, and been very successful in that, and in other things.

Dawn Riley and I have worked hard to try to find and focus insights that will make levels of peace and collaboration that have been impossible before possible. I believe that one of our basic insights, set out in the beginning of Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? fits, and is on point, here. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/0

MD8552 rshowalter 9/6/01 6:24am ... MD8553 rshowalter 9/6/01 6:26am
MD8554 rshowalter 9/6/01 6:49am ...

MD8503 rshowalter 9/5/01 4:18pm

rgbrasel - 01:51pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8700 of 8708)
RGBrasel@hotmail.com

re: nonproliferation, test bans, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other issues

Before we can expect transparency from other nations that have developed or are developing deliverable weapons of mass destruction, we ourselves should be transparent. Under the current security paradigm, the US military and other agencies involved in weapons r&d still operate under an umbrella of paranoia. First of all, there is no accountability to the people, under the guise of national security. I believe that programs such as stealth, etc. should retain their complete secrecy for the reason that those technologies will save the lives of American and allied soldiers. However, I also believe that the books should be opened on our own mass destruction weapons research--past and present. Neutron bombs, bioweapons, etc., are not defensive weapons, nor are they weapons to "neutralize" military targets. They exist for one reason: to kill large numbers of human beings, military and civilian.

We have lived too long under the shadow of annihilation. Disclosure on the part of our country is the most important step in ensuring a world free of weapons that threaten our very existence.

lunarchick - 02:43pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8701 of 8708)
lunarchick@www.com

believe that programs such as stealth, etc. should retain their complete secrecy for the reason that those technologies will save the lives of

'no one' ... in that a plane 1/4 the size of a football field creates distortion patterns as it moves --- and can be 'seen'

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense