New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

bluestar23 - 12:37pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16049 of 16222)

MOSCOW - Last week was marked by a new turn in Russia’s military policy, the Russian Courier newspaper reports. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a radical modernization of the Russian nuclear forces.

This statement was made after Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov presented the report “Urgent issues regarding the development of the Russian armed forces”. The Minister promised not to “rattle the saber”, but at the same time, he indicated that Russia was ready to treat nuclear arms as combat weapons, and it did not rule out the possibility of carrying out pre-emptive strikes.

According to the newspaper, this gives a new meaning to Russia’s defense strategy, adopted on April 21, 2000. If the Defense Ministry’s proposals are backed by the presidential decree, one can speak about a new defense doctrine, especially given that the report mentions a potential enemy.

As for foreign experts, their reaction was negative. According to them, Russia’s “potential enemy” is the United States and NATO. So, the German newspaper Die Welt published an article headlined “Russia warns NATO”, saying that Russia threatens NATO with a radical change in its military doctrine. According to the newspaper, Russian authorities will consider the possibility of adopting a new nuclear strategy if NATO remains “aggressive”.

For its part, the BBC believes that Vladimir Putin resorted to such measures after he failed to agree with his American counterpart George Bush during their recent meeting, or the two leaders might have fallen out. And The Washington Times notes that Mr. Putin decided to review the nuclear doctrine in order to remind NATO about the role of Russia in the international community.

However, an increase in the arsenal of the country’s most powerful missiles would contradict Russia’s plans to remain partners with NATO. In other words, Vladimir Putin’s statement was interpreted as imperial ambitions, fraught with the military threat.

In his recent statement, the Russian President said that Russia had significant reserves of strategic missiles. He stressed that these were Russia’s most powerful missiles, 100MUTTH, capable of breaking through any anti-missile defense system.

According to Mr. Putin, the available heavy missiles would be put into active service as the deployed missiles get decommissioned. “All modernization measures will correspond to Russia’s national interests and the overall international situation,” he added.

bluestar23 - 12:38pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16050 of 16222)

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=40740

the link...

bluestar23 - 12:41pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16051 of 16222)

"Russia’s most powerful missiles, 100MUTTH, capable of breaking through any anti-missile defense system."

And pigs can fly; Mr. Putin's rash statement is typical of the Russian national characteristic of being blowhards....and lying, a la Krushchev, about their rattletrap arms industry....

lchic - 01:43pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16052 of 16222)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Japan took the world electronics industry via use of a visionary strategy ...

RU military producted is priced right for developing countries

----

lchic - 01:52pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16053 of 16222)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Cantabb you're way out of line here

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DtADb1nNUyu.799816@.f28e622/17754

re your comment on my post.

I don't have any personal gripes.

I address my comment 'to the board' and it's subject matter.

My post stands up for itself .... get a second opinion from someone with a brain!

(169 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense