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?

possumdag - 07:16pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4091 of 4113)
Possumdag@excite.com

Sorry GI, I just couldn't bare to read the for/against post above. I was wondering how to make the world a better place. This may relate to everyone having a good VISION of a wonderful FUTURE. So what do the worker bees/ants of today work towards.

What things have given people an improved quality of life.

Looking at the sadness of Ships crossing from Sudan to Arabia shooting non-swimming passengers who refused to 'jump' into the sea .. on marvels at the value of quality improvement. Could all countries set out to raise their standards incrementally to give an improved quality of life to their people.

The madness in the MiddleEast continues, American Money finances the bullets that shoot even journalists who are considered to be alient to the Jewish Soldier. The Jews move up from bullet to missile and plane bombing attacks on the Palestinians ... violence isn't the answer ... !

Be good to bring to this board all the measures that could be thought of that in turn might help to make the world a 'better' healthier place for the new century.

Some countries need identity and purpose.

Others need to look at their processes and powerholders and bring checks and audits into being.

HongKong are killing their chickens ... thanks HK ... the world doen't want a new strain of chickenFlu.

Russia is salvaging the submarine with the Dutch who want to focus not on speed but on safety procedures ...

The wild fish of the sea are being overfished - bombed in granade fishing, showing that ecological matters relate to conservation and harmony.

Brazil is looking to conservation of power. California also.

The earth is a beautiful place, the resources are finite, the Missiles .... don't really fit into the scheme of things .. not at all.

gisterme - 07:22pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4092 of 4113)

gisterme posts #4088 through #4090 are a summary of both sides of the discussion from my point of view. If I've ommitted any arguement or you feel I've been unfair please speak up. Let's try for some more to-the-point discussion here. Eventhough we don't resolve anything one way or the other we can at least arrive at a clear and reasonably compact presentation of the arguments for both sides. Who knows? Maybe it will be read by presidents.

gisterme - 07:34pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4093 of 4113)

possumdag wrote: "...The earth is a beautiful place, the resources are finite, the Missiles .... don't really fit into the scheme of things .. not at all.

I'm with you on that. How is it that we came to this situation, possumdag? I'm all for nuclear disarmament. If that could be accomplished all in one swoop I'd like that just fine. That seems much less likely than some sort of an incremental approach. To me, BMD development seems like a way to get off the MAD dime. I think the whole nuclear standoff structure will collapse like a tent with its pole removed if someone makes a big first step towards taking down strategic nukes. The biggest pole in the tent is distrust.

gisterme - 07:41pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4094 of 4113)

possumdag wrote: "...Could all countries set out to raise their standards incrementally to give an improved quality of life to their people..."

I sure hope so, possumdag. If only we had a magic wand...

artemis130 - 08:03pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4095 of 4113)
caveat venditor

gisterme - 06:52pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4089 of 4094)

Summary, continued:

Arguments AGAINST BMD:

Nicely summarized, gisterme. You've left out one critical objection to BMD, which is why it was limited to regional defense in 1972 to begin with:

An effective, comprehensive and functioning BMD is the missing component to a FIRST-STRIKE SYSTEM.

Oh, you say - "but we can't wage war without Congressional approval."

We all know what window(s) that argument flew out of.

Devil's in the details.

gisterme - 08:03pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4096 of 4113)

possumdag wrote: "...I was wondering how to make the world a better place. This may relate to everyone having a good VISION of a wonderful FUTURE. So what do the worker bees/ants of today work towards..."

That's a great point possumdag. For me it's really hard to have a good vision of a wonderful future when I know my untimely destrucion is assured if someone I don't know makes the wrong move. Fortunately I believe most worker bee/ants in the US find the scope of possibilites within their own environment large enough to give them a vision of a wonderful future. The truth is that most folks don't worry much about being nuked anymore. A saving grace perhaps.

Gotta go.

artemis130 - 08:09pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4097 of 4113)
caveat venditor

gisterme - 07:05pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4090 of 4096)

Sorry, missed reading your addendum 'till just now.

gisterme - 08:20pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4098 of 4113)

Hi artemis! Haven't heard from you in a while...

An effective, comprehensive and functioning BMD is the missing component to a FIRST-STRIKE SYSTEM.

That's what I tried to address in the addendum as # 10 in the "against" list, the one I almost forgot. It's a reasonable argument if you presume worst intentions on the part of the US. I'm sure that's why so much emphasis has been placed on the BMD being of limited scope. One thing I can say...if the US goes ahead with the BMD they'd BETTER make sure that the Russians and Chinese are INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM at least to the exteht that they can clearly see the scope of its capability. That's the only way they can assure that the feared "new" arms race doesn't happen. The only way to build genuine trust.

gisterme - 08:21pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4099 of 4113)

Really going this time...

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense