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 - 08:09pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4304 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "Questions:

1. ...What do you know about Saddam which is so uniquely terrible and desrves and justifies the A-bombing of Iraq?"

Nothing almarst. You missed my point. The point was that nothing justifies A-bombing any place (except possibly as last-ditch home defense). That's why strategic weapons are useless.

2. What facts can you present to show that Saddam does not care about citizens of Iraq?

Saddam has not done what is required by UN resolutions to remove the sanctions he has caused his people to suffer.

3. Can you please explain why Saddam will survive the A-bombing of Iraq?

Because even using A-bombs, you still have to know where the guy is. Sprinkling A-bombs in the Iraqi desert would not have destroyed many scuds either. Nuking a place to try to kill one guy is the kind of thing Saddam might do. I doubt that the UN would sanction that sort of thing.

4. Can you tell "Why Saddam did not use the WMD during the Gulf War?

Because he only had enough chemical weapons to really piss off the coalition folks, not enough to get the whole job done. He was up against more than a helpless village. He knew that the objective of the war would change for sure if he used chemical weapons. He knew that the war would not stop until he was captured or killed if he did that.

Of course even Saddam wouldn't use bio weapons on his own turf. Once again, too dangerous for himself.

5. Can you explain "Why the US destroyed the Iraqi water purification systems - the only source of safe drincable water in a country for its civilian population?"

If it did almarst, I don't know for sure why, but I would guess that it was because it was also the only source safe of drinking water for the Iraqi army. That seems far less barbaric than some of the things the Iraqi army did during its invasion and occupation of Kuwait. After all, water works are easily replaced. Isn't making people drink from their own filthy river better than killing them?

gisterme - 08:24pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4305 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...The Bush-Ramsfeld-Wolfoviz-Bzezinski etc. "team" suggected that china is the next biggest tread for the US and the Far East is the next major area of US military concern and involvement..."

That's just posturing almarst, just like the airplane collision and everything that has ensued. The Taiwan arms deal is more of the same. In a year or so I don't expect we'll hear much more talk like that. The Chinese are just trying to see what this president is made of...whether or not he'll wait till his last few months in office to try to build a legacy. ;-)

smartalix - 08:54pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4306 of 4466)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

gisterme,

Among the points I am trying to make is that you bandy about the term ICBM as if it is something easy to do. A good ICBM is much harder to make than an atomic bomb.

Also, if Saddam launched one nuke at Israel...

Beyond that, an ICBM is a stupid way for a small power to try and nuke us, since any attack would be met with devastating retaliation. We would miss a city or two, but our respoinse would pave our adversary. A terrorist attack is the best method, due to the inherent plausible deniability.

If shrub shifts again to bring Russia into it in a role palatable to them, fine. It may work then, but only as a mechanism aiding peace and cooperation. It still wouldn't function.

almarst-2001 - 09:10pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4307 of 4466)

gisterme 5/29/01 8:09pm

On Saddam.

I think the only difference between Saddam and dosens of a like petty dictators and rullers perfectly accepted in Washington is OIL.

The stories of alleged Iraqi attrocities in Kuwait, in my view, are very similar in nature to those floated against Serbs and the "Butcher of Balkans". Even the lexicon was the same. The assumption was of cause: "Why change a "good story" if it worked so fine the first time?"

What are hard evidence about those Iraqi "attrocities?"

What are hard evidence about those Serbs "attrocities?"

Any independent from CIA-NATO source please.

On the other hand, what about killing close to a million Iraqi troops, mostly during the retreat on the open roads waving the white flag?

I remember very well the same attempt was done just after the Serbs started to pull out from Kosovo. They where bombed on the open ground causing most of their casualties in a last couple of days.

The bloody mad dogs needed to see blood just to satisfy their animal instincts and compensate for the failor of their "humanitarian" mission.

If I would be on their place and believe in God, I would lose my sleep. Not so fast. The bloody General from the Gulf War just got promoted to another bloody mission - the War on Drugs in Colombia. Humanitarian, of cause. By military means. By our last humanitarian "neo-liberal" Democratic Pres.

The crimes and attrocities commited against the civilian population of Iraq and Serbia are immensly greater then those "alleged" as comitted by them. And we all know the source of "allegations" and "fabricated evidence" - the CIA.

How cynical one can be to stay by your claim? Not much less then the Germany claim on "attrocities" commited against native Germans in Chechoslovakia. Just enough to justify the aggression and crime.

Bush-Clinton-Bush - same coin, two sides. In my view.

almarst-2001 - 09:21pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4308 of 4466)

gisterme 5/29/01 8:24pm

On China.

What a game! "just posturing"! I quess the Rambuliette which leaded to "humanitarian" bombing was just another example of this "postering".

Should we assume the MD is postering? Was the cold War postering?

May be I just don't know the full spectrum of the meaning of this word - postering?

Should I ssume all is postering untill the first bomb is dropped?

I believe, the Bush is trying to play the "reverse" version of Nixon's Chaina-US-Russa triangle. This time against China. Is it my "misunderestimation"?;)

possumdag - 09:31pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4309 of 4466)
Possumdag@excite.com

same coin two sides, or same coin one side - a two headed coin ... the real question here is, behind the president WHO (name) makes the decisions:

- Who determined to use Agent Orange - Who said 'pick this and that target then fire' & - Who should be saying go back and CLEAN UP after laying mines and dropping bombs especially over innocent civillian populations

(157 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense