|
![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
Thursday.
 
  (643 previous messages)
lchic
- 01:21pm Mar 17, 2002 EST (#644
of 650)
RU - NATO The Times
Russian bid to 'weaken' Nato alienates West By
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
ATTEMPTS by Nato and Russia to forge a new security
partnership have broken down because Moscow is trying to weaken
the power of the alliance, according to Western diplomats. A
document presented by Yevgeni Gusarov, the Deputy Foreign
Minister, demands that any decisions taken by the 19 Nato members
and Russia should be permanently binding on the alliance.
Moscow also wants a joint secretariat at Nato headquarters in
Brussels.
One diplomat said that the Russians were trying to go “too
far” in forging new links with Nato and were attempting to
emasculate the power of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s
principal decision-making body.
The aim of the present negotiations is to produce a special
forum that will enable Moscow and the 19 members of Nato to
consult and plan together on issues of shared concerns such as
terrorism, peacekeeping, theatre missile defence, nuclear
non-proliferation, search and rescue and civil emergencies.
At present there is a Nato-Russia Permanent Joint Council,
which was set up in 1997, but Moscow has always complained it is
just a talking shop.
Renewed impetus for a more practical partnership with Moscow
was generated after the September 11 attacks in the United States
when President Putin offered his full support for the American War
on Terror.
Last November, Tony Blair wrote to President Putin suggesting
a new formula, under which Russia and Nato would work together as
equal partners — 20 countries reaching consensus on specific
areas.
The Prime Minister proposed a Russia/North Atlantic Council,
which would have regular meetings. In all other security matters,
including decisions about going to war, the North Atlantic Council
would retain its full decision-making powers without the presence
of Russian officials.
However, the Western diplomats said that Moscow had taken this
idea and proposed what amounted to a new arrangement that would
supplant Nato’s independence.
The document presented by Mr Gusarov makes only one reference
to Nato and then goes on to refer to a new consultative process
between Moscow and 19 individual countries.
“It goes back to the bad old days when Moscow used to promote
the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe as the only security bodies,” one diplomat
said.
The plan had been to reach a final agreement on the format for
a new security partnership by the time of the next Nato foreign
ministers’ meeting, which is in Reykjavik in May.
This could then be formally adopted by Nato heads of
Government at the summit in Prague in November.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-237399,00.html
rshow55
- 01:32pm Mar 17, 2002 EST (#645
of 650) 
Interesting euphemism in above -- "Western Diplomats". . . . . .
rshow55
- 01:47pm Mar 17, 2002 EST (#646
of 650)
Americans sometimes show a strong visceral fear of nuclear
weapons, but they are amazingly ignorant about them -- in this area
- as lunarchick suggests -- politicians have not been doing their
job for half a century. And now, the facts of votor ignorance have
strong, dangerous effects on what is politically possible. The
dangers of nuclear weapons have not been widely enough appreciated
by the voters -- many Americans are stunningly uninformed about the
real dangers. A distinguished and professional poster,
kangdawei , who I believe was Ann Coulter because she posted
Coulter's web site under the name "kangdawei , pointed out the
astonishing fact that most americans thing the United States has a
missile defense. MD9901 kangdawei 9/29/01 10:05am quoted
Defending the West: Current Debate over Ballistic Missle
Defense by: Brian T.Kennedy http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v9n3/kennedy.html
"Although missile defense is the single most
important component of national security policy in the nuclear
age, there is amazing ignorance on the current state of our
defense. Indeed, prior to the election of George W. Bush, 74% of
Americans believed the United States possessed a national missile
defense. Since the election, and the publicity the issue received
from the campaign, that number is down to about 58%. Still, all in
all, an amazing statistic if you consider that over half of the
American people believe the United States possesses a missile
defense when in fact not a single, solitary missile can be
stopped.
"The confusion is understandable. In a democratic
republic like ours it is expected that matters of national
security will be examined and explained by the president and
members of Congress. Citizens assume that their representatives
will be well-informed about such matters having access to the best
military and political intelligence in the country. After all,
they heard from President Reagan that he was going to build a
national missile defense, and they assumed he did. Their
representatives say little about the threat to the United States
from missile attack and the absence of a defense.
These representatives should say more -- but to an extent, in a
democracy, they have to respond to voter opinion, or work done "in
the ordinary line of their duties" -- which are very busy. If key
questions are to addressed, people with power - - ideally
leaders of other nations ---are going to ask for that consideration.
The issue has to be news --- and it can't be a situation where the
only powerful people with an interest are military contractors.
Domestic organizations interested in arms control and peace,
excepting the one set up by Ted Turner, and now dominated by CSIS,
are outfunded by perhaps 500:1 - - and some influence is going to
have to come from other nations.
almarst-2001
- 04:18pm Mar 17, 2002 EST (#647
of 650)
“It goes back to the bad old days when Moscow used to promote
the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe as the only security bodies,” one diplomat
said.
Those "bad old days" where when the NATO was a collective DEFENCE
organization still holding to its charter. Not an Europen subsidiary
of the Pentagon its shaping into right now.
A very "BAD" days indeed...
 (3
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|
