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?

lunarchick - 10:50am Sep 17, 2001 EST (#9281 of 9289)
lunarchick@www.com

America is said to be BIG on CAPITALISM. Yet, the collection and redistribution of taxes to public good, is about social policy. Perhaps America should come out and admit that Nation State economies are 'mixed' economies. This done, then, the State would more clearly be aware that it does have responsibilities for public security.

lunarchick - 10:53am Sep 17, 2001 EST (#9282 of 9289)
lunarchick@www.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/0,7722,362455,00.html

lunarchick - 10:55am Sep 17, 2001 EST (#9283 of 9289)
lunarchick@www.com

:) Nite!

rshowalter - 11:06am Sep 17, 2001 EST (#9284 of 9289)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 9/17/01 10:42am . . . . . . . Could private agendas have been part of the problem? Including the desire for private profit, and the desire to hide things in the past that could not stand the light of day? .

. . On the basis of things I've seen, and gisterme's responses, the question is well worth asking.

Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm by By LESLIE WAYNE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

MD8070 rshowalter 8/23/01 6:45pm ... MD8071 rshowalter 8/23/01 8:49pm

Mystro a drum roll for these big-ticket items in procurement for the military industrial complex:

F/A-18E/F Fighter

F-22 Fighter

Joint Strike Fighter

C-17 Transport Aircraft

V-22 Osprey Aircraft

RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter

Crusader Artillery System

NSSN New Attack Submarine ("Virginia" Class)

Ballistic and National Missile Defense (BMD)

Reading from the page - the same page everyone - can anyone pick 'winners' from the above ?

Not a single one of them is worthwhile from the viewpoint of a reasonable United States citizen, unconnected with the military or military contractors. The aircraft are not needed to respond to any credible threat -- and with advances in radar that are now either in place or possible, none are even viable. The Osprey is grossly defective. We don't need another submarine for either defensive or offensive purposes -- though the Navy and the contractors may want it.

We have good artillery now -- and as I remember, the Crusader may be being phased out -- a good decision.

NONE of the above are projects that American citizens are enthusiastic about -- the military doesn't even bother to "sell" them very hard.

Missile Defense is different. It makes sense to people -- it promises something people would like to have. But it doesn't work technically, and can't -- and it is associated with prohibitive diplomatic and financial costs.

No winners in the list above -- except for the contractors.

MD8072 lunarchick 8/23/01 9:03pm . . . MD8073 rshowalter 8/23/01 9:18pm

rshowalter - 11:07am Sep 17, 2001 EST (#9285 of 9289)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

After the tragedy-crimes of September 11, we ought to recognize that our resources are not limitless, consider these financial and diplomatic costs - - and go about the serious business of meeting the real security needs of the United States.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense