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 - 12:23pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4265 of 4466)

acheson1 wrote: "...Spending $60 BB on NMD would be like speding thousands of $s wiring your windows against a burgler, but leasving your front door wide open..."

That's true only if you consider any threat of a nuclear attack to be all threats, acheson1. What you say is like saying "Spending $60BB on developing antibiotics would be like spending thousands of $s wiring your window against a burgler, but leaving your front door wide open..."; just because antibiotics don't fignt all types of disease. There's no claim by anyone that an NMD would protect against more than accidents or the type of nuclear blackmail some rogue leader might be tempted to try if he managed to get hold of a few ICBMs. For example, if Saddam had had a dozen ICBMs, the respose to and outcome of his Kuwait adventure would have been quite different. The deterrance that comes from assured destruction can only be effective against rational leadership. It will not be effective against a leader who wants to become a martyr and who doesn't care about the well-being of his people.

armel7 - 12:42pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4266 of 4466)
Science/Health Forums Host

Article:NATO opposes US missile defense plans...

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

gisterme - 01:44pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4267 of 4466)

armel7 wrote: armel7 5/29/01 12:42pm"...NATO opposes US missile defense plans..." with a link to an article.

Don't see how you make the transformation from "skepticism" to "opposition" in your conclusion about that article, armel. The article doesn't show anything more about the end result of the disucssion than one would know about the outcome of a cake by peeking into the oven when it's half-baked. I'm not even sure that I'd agree with the author's conclusion of "skepticism" based on the text of the article. Isn't asking reasonable questions about any proposed thing just the prudent exercise of discourse to increase knowledge about the proposal? When there are no conclusions, how does one attach skepticism, optimism, opposition or support to that?

All that article really says is that a disucssion process is ongoing and far from over. No more, no less. Wouldn't an "un-spun" title for that article be "NATO Hears US BMD Proposal: Results Pending Further Discussion"?

armel7 - 01:51pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4268 of 4466)
Science/Health Forums Host

Sorry, no spin intended. Should read, "NATO skeptical of US missile defense plans"

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

gisterme - 01:52pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4269 of 4466)

applez wrote: "...Carry on the good fight! :)..."

Will do, applez. Enjoy your journies. Hope your contact isn't too intermittant. You contribute a lot here.

gisterme - 01:58pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4270 of 4466)

Should read, "NATO skeptical of US missile defense plans"

Thanks Michael. That's a useful clarification. Also, thanks for posting the article. It really is relevant to this discussion. Hope everybody reads it.

rshowalt - 02:04pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4271 of 4466)

I read it, and by diplomatic standards NATO responses are negative indeed, as far as the administation's missile defense proposals are concerned.

rshowalt - 02:05pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4272 of 4466)

As Bob Herbert and others have pointed out, this administration, far more than any other in memory, has used the "big lie" technique -- the similarities between this administration, and the Hitler administration of 1933 Germany are disquieting to me, and must surely concern reasonable Russians. When I searched the connection between the Nazis and the Bush family, going back to the 1930's, I came across a great deal of material -- some of which one can find by searching this thread. Damning material. Connections between Nazi war criminals, long hidden, are now clearer than they have been -- and it becomes a reasonable question whether the Bush administration has very significant, and corrupt ties, with a "vast right wing conspiracy." This is made no easier to deal with, when the history of the Cold War, not as it is understood by the American population, informed by a journalistic "culture of lying" - but by what really happened. The dialog with gisterme has many points to recommend it, but much of it, to people asking for "good will" from the United States, is chilling stuff. 3353: rshowalter 5/6/01 10:55am . . . 3354: rshowalter 5/6/01 10:56am included especially a point that gisterme would not have admitted, which later (and this must be scored partly to gisterme's credit, became "common ground" MD3424rshowalter 5/7/01 4:11pm ) ". The US was hugely agressive in its uses of nuclear weapons - and routinely lied. http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan , National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms ,Vancouver, Canada March 6, 1996

Comments by gisterme, connected to that document in MD3375: gisterme 5/6/01 5:05pm .... and thereafter can't possibly give Russians and others much comfort. The position was that "we were at WAR" -- (an undeclared war, involving much deception, including systematic subversion of American institutions) and that " "war" can justify anything. "

Negotiations have to proceed on the basis of what happened in the past. And the word of the present administration has to be interpreted on the basis of the way that it has behaved, domestically and internationally. The Russians have good reasons to be wary when the US says "trust us."

(194 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense