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 - 01:28pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4350 of 4466)

almarst posted an article about "Echelon" in:

almarst-2001 5/29/01 10:38pm

Here's what I think Echelon is really for:

http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/world/30TERR.html?Partner=MSNNews&RefId=OPjxYEFnnunJNnKZ

The investigation of Mr. bin Laden evolved out of those earlier terrorism investigations by the United States attorney's office in Manhattan, which is why the trial of the embassy bombings, which occurred more than 7,000 miles away in Africa, ended up in New York, and why prosecutors are still seeking to bring Mr. bin Laden and 12 other fugitives in the case to New York to face charges.

Mr. bin Laden is the scion of a wealthy Saudi family who prosecutors say leads a group, Al Qaeda, that finances Islamic terrorism around the world. He is believed to be living in Afghanistan under the protection of the ruling Taliban.

Don't forget that most industrial espionage is against the US and the list of allies that are in the article because they are the most advanced industrially. Industrial espionage is an unlikely motive for building a network like Echelon, if it exists. The more likely motivation for building a network like that is that all those countries are potential targets of Al Qaeda or other jihadists.

Echelon is an example of measures being taken to mitigate the threat of the hand-delivered nuke or other WMD that everybody seems so concerned about on this list. It's civil defense outside the scope of the proposed BMD.

Of course, if we apply the rationale so common to this list, we shouldn't waste money on trying to stop hand carried WMD beacuse, after all, it would be totally ineffective against nukes delivered by ballistic missiles. :-) Have I got the logic right? ;-)

gisterme - 01:57pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4351 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...The US never intervenes to stop the attrocities ... unless it sees the big $ at the the end of the road.

You might be right almarst, let's check (as Robert would say). Where are the big $ at the end of:

1) Grenada

2) Panama

3) Iraq

4) Somalia

5) Bosnia

6) Kosovo ????

As far as I can tell, the cash-flow has been in the wrong direction in all those cases to justify your claim. Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

And it very conveniently choses the "right" to side with against the "wrong", the "butcher", the "evil".

Which would you choose to side with, almarst?

This is not just a "hypocricy". This is a calculated crime.

I think you're extrapolating something from nothing here, almarst. You still haven't answered this:

Here's the problem. On the one hand you say that it's a terrible crime for the US to interevene in a place to try to stop atrocities. On the other hand, Mugabe is claiming that the US is "condoning" atrocity because it has not intervened. Seems like a clear cut case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

So, almarst, do you feel that the US should be condemned as a hypocrite because it has not intervened to stop atrocity in the Congo?

gisterme - 02:22pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4352 of 4466)

possumdag wrote: "..." Perhaps the Journos are warned off by the Guard Dogs and guns of military administration."

rshowalter wrote: "...That warning off can be very explicit and threatening indeed. Some warnings have been so for me, and for a lady I work with -- people have some reason to be afraid.

Warning off? Sounds like an interesting story, Robert. What are you talking about?

But less reason to be afraid than they may at first think. And after a while, people now paralyzed by fear -- including very many journalists, may find ways to act on their consciences.

You must be talking about journalists in Russia, Robert, trying to adjust to their newly won freedom of press. The only thing US journalists fear is that they they might not spin things just the way their media bosses want them to.

gisterme - 02:33pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4353 of 4466)

larnone2 wrote: "...No one is going to feel safe knowing that at the flick of a button we can destroy this planet..."

That sums up the current reality quite well, larnone. I'd feel much safer if we could get rid of the thousands of strategic nukes that currently threaten us all. If BMD research or even eventual deployment can lead to that disarmament THEN I'll feel safer.

armel7 - 02:37pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4354 of 4466)
Science/Health Forums Host

China is apparently executing some amphibious military meneuvers. Do US plans exacerbate the China-Taiwan situation?

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

gisterme - 02:54pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4355 of 4466)

rshowalt 5/30/01 1:01pm

" ...................... there's a growing body of evidence that the usual rules don't apply to this administration.

Oh the glee that the author of that statment must have felt when at last he could send the accusation back the other way after having the same shoved in his face for the last eight years.

If anything illegal has been done with this tax cut legislation there won't be any lack of official notice. It's not like everybody loves this president too much to notice.

Personally, I think more hocus-pocus is going on within the article than went on in the congress WRT the tax cut bill. The tenor of the article is like that of a spoiled kid who hasn't got his way. Not far short of outright whining.

(111 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense