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 - 08:14pm May 20, 2001 EST (#4107 of 4113)

artemis wrote: "...MAD is just the logical culmination of the only thing that's deterred nations/alliances from warring with each other throughout history, although - in the prenuclear era it was simply called PAD (Possibly Assured Destruction). It's an evolutionary system, inherently more stable than a revolutionary one...."

Very nicely said, artemis. I'll agree that MAD is a paradigm that that has evolved to its current state during the age of empire, basically history to date, and that it is perfectly adapted for that age. But few would disagree that the age of empire is over. We know what's over every horizon and who lives there. All territory is pretty much legitimately spoken for. There are no new frontiers in a territorial sense. The fuel for the old race between empires is now expended. All the old racers hit the wall during WWII and the dust is finally settling after that cataclysmic crash. We're in a new era.

lunarchick - 09:34pm May 20, 2001 EST (#4108 of 4113)
lunarchick@www.com

If Russia didn't have one Missile it might be a better place, a more attractive - less ugly place, a place which emphasised culutre and looked to the technological skills of tomorrow.

Heaps of places don't have missiles ... most of them beautiful places.

I'd be happy for the USA to buy up all the missiles in russia, pakistan, india, china, france and where-ever ... they could use them to decorate the whitehouse ... perhaps turn them into grandstands for the little league baseballers!

almarst-2001 - 10:50pm May 20, 2001 EST (#4109 of 4113)

gisterme 5/20/01 7:32pm

"anyone who believes that is selling Russia way short, misinterpreting US motiviation and overestimating US power."

How would you interprete the effort to break-up the Yugoslavia by fueling the nacionalistic sentiments and arming and supporting the radical nacionalistic movements like in Croatia, the fundamental islamist in Bosnia, heavily infiltrated and openly supported by Taliban, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and even the mafia-style organizations like KLA?

How would you interpret the Bombing of Serbia without Security Council resolution?

How would you interpret the drive to push the NATO to Russian borders, particularelly after Kosovo?

How would you interpret the support of Chechen terrorists - the Taliban in making?

How would you interpret the attempt to pull former Soviet republics out of the Russian sphere of trade, economy and common defence? This is clearly against their economic interests and nevertheless, the US is willing to bribe them out to the cold, literally.

"I'll say again, Russian people have something like liberty now, for the first time in centuries."

And they have total economic and social collapse for the first time since WWII. They also have a serious break-down in social and health services, the 70% of the population in the powerty, the drustic reduction of the life expectancy, the huge increase in epidemic deseases, the serious unemployment, the wide-spread prostitution and women's trafficing to the West into the virtual slavory, the huge drain to the West of the capital, human and otherwise. The West can now buy the Russian scientists and the best sportsmen for pennies. What would you feel and think in their place?

"They have a good industrial base, good technical know-how"

The West-advised privatization destroyed the large part of their industry. The know-how posessed professionals, in large part, either are unemployed, became black-marketeers or moved out to other countries.

"They have everything the newborn US had when it won its liberty"

Many countries had everything the newborn US had when it won its liberty for much longer now. They did no became the US. The Britain was not engaged in such activities the US is, as I pointed out above. And the Britain did not really try to crush the US after loosing it. There was no "cold war", no economic blocade, no capital and human's dran, no propaganda and bribary of officials, no covered attempts to black-mail the bribed Government, such as this of Yeltzin. Not quite the same.

"Perhaps they have more since they already have international respect and don't have to worry about foreign invaders."

They actually warry very much about foreign forces working overtime to facilitate their break-down by inciting and organising the nacionalistic movements like in Chechnia. In an attempt to repeat the Yugoslavian kind of "success".

"That has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, nor does it have much to do with what the US does or doesn't do."

See above.

"Do you feel threatened by weapons that are strictly defensive in nature, smartalix?"

I am sure you would feel threatened facing even the US's conventional weaponry if you have nothing to deter. The Iraq is bombed on a dayly bases without any international authorisation. The Serbia was bombed into the submision absolutly criminally. Just recall how many countries where bombed or invaded by US in a past 10-15 years. What would prevent to happen in a future? What for the development of US "force projection" rush today? don't tell me it is for the defence.

"Even if Russia had a perfect 100% effective missile shield, why would they launch an attack on the US or anyplace else? What would they gain by obliterating the US? Nothing at all. No more than the US could gain by doing same to Russia. The old motives are gone. The US and Russia are not enemies.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense