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?

lunarchick - 02:21pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1792 of 1797)
lunarchick@www.com

http://www.oss.net/

rshowalter - 02:22pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1793 of 1797)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The objective must be to move away from unnecessary fighting.

And away from wholly disproportionate means of threatening, including nuclear weapons.

To this end, the past has to be understood.

Distinctions between the American government, and the small subset that has made crucial military decisions, needs to be made.

almarst-2001 3/29/01 11:55am
dirac_10 3/29/01 11:59am
rshowalter 3/29/01 12:01pm
rshowalter 3/29/01 12:03pm

Context to the Cold War: Dark Sun by Richard Rhodes rshowalter 3/22/01 11:48am
and especially rshowalter 3/26/01 9:14pm

" US firebombing of North Korean cities and the bombing of large dams killed more than two million civilians."

Could it be, that after that injury, for that culture, especially with us the allies of the hated Japanese, the Koreans could not make peace?

Might not be an example of other problems, and a very important example of why it does not make sense to ever inflict unforgivable injuries on another nation, as nuclear weapons will inevitably do?

We need to move towards peace -- it is in everybody's interest (except for very few) and all though the world, nation states are getting clearer about that. The US, leader of the older way, may be last to change. But it would change, too, and that could come quickly.

rshowalter - 02:24pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1794 of 1797)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 3/29/01 12:07pm For some summaries, with linkages of the work that "lunarchick" and I have doing, you might be interested in the discussion, in Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159

The first part of the thread, that connects to the movie Casablanca , may interest some as well. It gives reasons why to Cold War needs to be over.

rshowalter - 02:34pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1795 of 1797)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Though there may be other possibilities, the possibility that a small group of very unpatriotic individuals, including the Bushes, may have acted, and may be acting, in deep conflict with the interest of the United States needs to be considered. 1699--- almarst-2001 3/29/01 12:20pm to 1704 --- rshowalter 3/29/01 12:55pm

rshowalter - 03:18pm Mar 30, 2001 EST (#1796 of 1797)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A VERY interesting article http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/30/science/30NIF.html

March 30, 2001 Laser Project Hits a Snag; Court Hints At Conflict by JAMES GLANZ

" A federal judge has temporarily barred backers of an Energy Department laser project from citing an expert panel's evaluation, a decision suggesting that the panel may have been improperly stacked with people who have a stake in the project.

. . . .

" The department says the laser project, called the National Ignition Facility, will help ensure the reliability of the nation's nuclear stockpile without actual nuclear tests, by simulating conditions close to those in bombs. Opponents say the project was built only to give Livermore weapons scientists a mission after the end of the cold war.

" The suit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington and a local organization critical of the laboratory. It charges, in effect, that the department filled the panel with scientists who had a financial and professional stake in the laser, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

" This court injunction suggests that D.O.E.'s review is not independent and is not even legal," said Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who opposes the project, referring to the Department of Energy. "We should not continue to pour money into N.I.F. without a rigorous, independent review."

I don't see, personally, how such a review can possibly justify the facility on defense grounds. The physics problems in nuclear weapons are of a mathematical nature that data from the facility, even if it were perfect, would not help with. That shouldn't be hard to show.

Could it be that the entire US military is now engaged in an exercise, much like that suggested for the National Ignition Facility, that is nothing more than a boondoggle?

Could "missions" and "threats" be inflated, or invented, or manufactured for no other reason?

Could this be reinforcing fraud at other levels -- all protected by "expert endorsements" that are not questioned?

It seems to me that the question is worth some attention.

When I had a conversation with a person at CIA, last september, related to the proposal, this thread, #266-269, it was clear that after the committee discussion, they wanted to be especially clear that I advocated nuclear rather than total disarmament. So far as I could gather, they didn't have a clue what the United States needed such a large military for.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense