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?

gisterme - 01:49pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8833 of 8869)

Yesterday's attacks were intended to provoke even more bloodshed, bloodshed that would amplify hatered among Arabs against all the western democracies. The perpatrators expect the US to start whacking heads off the hydra. I hope that doesn't happen because there would be lots of bloodshed indeed and with little effect. That has been proven by both the US and Russia in Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechinya. Yes, these folks all belong to the same club; they're just different heads on the same beast. I hope the US and its allies can afford to wait until they can cut the heart out of that many-headed beast in a single stroke...to kill it once and for all. If that can be done, then a lot of innocent lives will be spared and the invitation to blood-lust of yesterday's attack refused. That alone would render yesterday's attack a strategic failure.

I'm certain that the motiviation for whatever the US and it's many friends world-wide do about this atrocity will be prevention of future recurrences rather than revenge. Self defense is a righteous motiviation. Revenge is not.

Whatever turns out to be the case, the world changed yesterday...WW III began. It won't end until all terrorist organizations and their benefactors are either destroyed or western civilization is destroyed. The worst is yet to come, both here and aborad. Personally, I think yesterday's "attack card" was played because the terrorists feel that they have an even more powerful trump-card still in their hand. Alas, Babylon, you are mistaken.

The sleeping giant has been re-awakened. We've taken punches before and lost good people before...and as before, all that has been accomplished is to focus our resolve.

almarst-2001 - 02:01pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8834 of 8869)

gisterme 9/12/01 1:49pm

Excelent statement.

Except I don't think it will be easy to "cut the heart out of that many-headed beast". Because, in my oppinion, the heart most likely is located in the "Arabic Oil Kingdoms".

gisterme - 02:23pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8835 of 8869)

I believe that's the truth almarst . Didn't mean to imply that anything would be easy. There will be nothing easy or pleasant about any of this. It's a sad situation; but, whatever it takes must be done. The world will be a better place for everybody afterwords. In the meantime, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the location that evil pump, wherever it may be found. The die has been cast and it has turned up a loser for that beast.

logician3 - 02:30pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8836 of 8869)
Bush is an idiot.

gisterme 9/12/01 1:48pm

I'm not saying it's impossible, just not the most likely scenario, and we need to put our resources where they will do the most good.

gisterme - 03:16pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8837 of 8869)

I'll repeat, logician3 that in irrational circumstances, conventional wisdom does not apply.

Would you expect that the perpetrators of yesterday's atrocity are going to stick to the "most likely scenario" from now on? I wouldn't. We must prepare for all scenarios, likely or not. The cost of not doing so was demonstrated yesterday and is far greater than the cost of all preparation combined. Would you spend a hundred billion to undo the events of yesterday? I certainly would. Unfortunately, it's just too late for that. If the last president hadn't disbanded so much of our intelligence gathering capability, this attack might have been prevented; but, there's no sense in crying over spilled milk. We've no choice but to move forward from here. We are no longer at peace.

If these creatures can get their hands on a nuclear missile the results will be far worse than yesterday's horror. After witnessing the events of yesterday, do you doubt that they would use such a missile?

I expect that we'll see some new alliances arise from this whole situation especially between Russia and the other western democracies. I believe the world has been rudely awakened to the fact that we have a common enemy. There's no longer any doubt about the reality of the threat or the nature of the perpatrators.

rshowalter - 03:18pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8838 of 8869)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Good to see you both here.

gisterme 9/12/01 1:48pm , I think the situation is ugly, but not ugly in quite the way you express:

" No amount of negotiating or "understanding", as Robert puts it, would have prevented yesterday's tragedy. These mass-murderers are no more interested in those things than Hitler was. They want to kill Jews just like Hitler did. Same spirit. They hate the US because it has prevented them from doing that. It's as simple as that. They are not rational...and in an irrational enviornment, conventional wisdom does not apply."

I'd have no objection to punishing the perpetrators of these horrors, and even seeing it happen in memorable ways. And the people who directly support them.

All the same -- they have a LOT of support in the world, or they couldn't have, and wouldn't have, done what they did.

Dehumanizing them doesn't help. Whether we fight them, or treat with them, or do some of both, we will do it most effectively if we understand them. MacArthur, no angel of mercy, would have said the same.

What these terrorists did made sense and seemed right to them.

Some understanding, a good deal of understanding, might help a good deal. I'm not suggesting forgiveness, or weakness.

I'm for wiping terrorism off the face of the earth. But might the definition of terrorism be worth discussing?

I think so.

(31 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense