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 - 02:14pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4386 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...If you think the "Echelon" is a legitimate enterprise working overtime to protect the world (including presumably the US NATO alies in Europe) against terrorists, why such a strange behavier on the side of this enterprise's owners?

Because the less that's known about the capabilities of an ingelligence gaterhing apparatus, the more effective it is. The ideal situation is for its existance to not be known. An intelligence officer from anyplace in the world could verify that for you, almarst (if you could find one who admits he exists). :-)

And, if so little trust of US by Europe, how one could hope to convince them the US designed MD will benefit them as well?

With all due respect, almarst, I'll say that your judgement of the magnitude of distrust between the US and its European allies seems overblown. I'm no doctor, but if you have a tummy-ache, I'd guess it's because you've been devouring too much of that emotional cotton candy. :-)

I think the reason for the US proposal to Russia to use some of their missile technology is not because the SA300 systems are directly applicable to a BMD, but as an acknowledgement that Russia has the capability, technology and opportunity to make significant contributions...a trust-building effort, no more, no less. One must start somewhere. You can bet that the European MI complex sees that too. If the BMD ever gets built, it seems likely that the European and Russian MI complexes will be involved.

Perhaps an SA300 airframe or modification thereof along with a different guidance system would meet the needs for the "terminal defense" layer of a BMD.

rshowalter - 02:46pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4387 of 4466)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If you guys got your guidance mathematics improved, you could do better with a lot of rockets you have.

rshowalter - 02:49pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4388 of 4466)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

4382-4386 are good posts, gisterme.

You asked good questions in 4357, 4359, 4363 -- but I'd like to review some bidding -- ancient history -- written on May 7 -- By that time, almarst had been contributing to this thread for five weeks -- and extensively -- and positions had clarified a great deal -- the following postings are directories of almarsts' postings -- including a summary or main points in that extensive discussion. I wanted to show that progress to gisterme , and think it is useful to do so again - especially for one word "interdependent."

md3462 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@174.YlOxarJHpuH^497820@.f0ce57b/3719... md3463 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:10pm
read in part:

(Peace) would be greatly to the advantage of the United States. The m-i complex would, in fact, have plenty to do. But things would have to be negotiated on the basis of distrust, which is what characterizes militaries, and must into stable arrangments.

Current levels of deception would have to come way down -- or I don't see how a solution would be possible.

Let me go ahead and post -- it may take ten minutes or so - - to give you a sense of the effort already expended -- and ground covered. The Russians want peace and so, I believe, would China, and Iraq, and Iran, and even N. Korea -- if we could proceed with a little sophistication, and a little grace.

After the pages give a sense of the amount of conversation that's gone on -- we can go on talking. But somebody, who knows a lot about Russia, wants peace badly , and shows a lot of good sense, and good faith.

rshowalter - 02:51pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4389 of 4466)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is the multipart Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (1-10)

md3464 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@174.YlOxarJHpuH^497820@.f0ce57b/3721.... md3465 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:18pm
md3467 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:19pm .... md3469 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:20pm
md3470 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:22pm .... md3471 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:23pm
md3473 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:24pm .... md3474 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:25pm
md3476 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:26pm .... md3477 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:26pm
md3478 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:27pm ....

md3479 reads in part: If you look at the links -- an amazing percentage of them are very good -- and seem to show a good deal of depth of connection.

md3477 rshowalter 5/7/01 8:26pm reads in part: ...... "md2012: almarst-2001 4/5/01 2:44pm was important with respect to nuclear disarmament -- it was a conditional acceptance (on the "stand in" basis of this thread -- and may be interesting as a "dry run"

. rshowalter 4/5/01 2:32pm "Speaking for the longer term -- the only source of energy on the horizon, that can let the world go on indefinitely, and permit peoples now impoverished to share in prosperity -- has to be nuclear power. "

"Agree.

" But nuclear weapons would have to be effectively outlawed. Many kinds of stability and reliability would have to be higher than today. "

"Mutually dependent.

THIS, ON OUR "DRY RUN" BASIS, IS IMPORTANT COMMON GROUND.

And the key phrase is mutually dependent.

(77 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense