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?

rshowalter - 03:23pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1840 of 1864)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some things take discussion and staff work. So that real people can have enough time, and see things from enough angles, and ask enough questions, to come to workable, comfortable solutions. Perhaps something along the following lines might be workable.

953: rshowalter 3/12/01 1:24pm

956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm "It seems that nobody has

"It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished after these answers were thrashed out.

Goals:

" Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

" Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

"work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --( without pseudonyms) - say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

With "shadow government" teams for nonparticipants if necessary.

There are plenty of distinguished, proven people who would probably be available it this were being reasonably done. Many people care, and care a lot, about these issues.

Something along those lines might actually get the key facts straight, and get those facts widely enough understood that the VERY ugly impasse of the last decade might come to be clarified, and resolved to a form better than the terrifying and ugly situation we have today.

This might be difficult. But since we know that "alternatives" such as anti-missile defense don't work at all, it seems well worth doing.

And a lot of lies could be swept away.

rshowalter - 03:30pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1841 of 1864)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Any world leader, any country, any interest group, could participate. No world leader, no country, no interest group, should be let off with an assertion based on no more than bald statement.

On the internet, a great deal could be established, before witnesses, pretty quickly.

There may be "many different points of view" but on key facts, there are many fewer when people are using their real names, the statements are public, and impartial people can be asked to judge facts that are in dispute.

lunarchick - 03:32pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1842 of 1864)
lunarchick@www.com

Missile test firing : Mexico

2 patriots intercept incoming balistic

upgraded version of patriot missile (early Nineties)

eurocore - 03:34pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1843 of 1864)

>Albanians were saved from extermination

should read AlbanianOILfields were 'saved' from Russian control that was deflected to American control

I honestly don't think any of the NATO countries benefitted economically from the war.

seems the Yugo stuff was an 'economic - trade war' and not about political idealism and democracy and freedom and all the rest

I'm pretty sure it was a humanitarian mission - you can justify the cost of mobilising troops and the weaponry used in terms of gaining trade with Kosavo. 'Trade' would have suggested peace with the bigger economy Serbia was better.

A Yugoslavian said to me re when in the city under seige

" we listened to the news at 7pm .. we didn't understand what was being said ... later the news was put out in 3 languages ... we listened ... we still didn't understand what was being said ... what was the war about? "

The causes are complex and state television probably didn't say the western line, so contadictory messages to Serbs seems likely.

Addition to the psycholgical trashing of hundreds and thousands of people who had lived side by side and intermarried in the melting pot .... the people within that war 'didn't know' what the stench of death, and emotional wrenching, was all about !!

But Mr. Milosevic was killed Albanians and forcing them out of their homes before the war! Surely we had to intervene to prevent 'ethnic cleansing'. The idea that NATO caused the interethnic problems is strange - NATO attempted to prevent a repeat of Bosnia's ethnic cleansing policy that occurred after UN forces refused to engage those carrying out the crimes.

It was about GREED and ugliness !!!

The people needed 'paperwork solutions' they needed leadership .. they needed a regular future!

I agree, but I don't think Mr. Miloservic would have been persuaded by further diplomacy: the EU had already placed a large economy-damaging trade embargo and other countries were following suit. He'd probably just ignore the pressure and finish off the Albanians.

Inactivity may have been worse that the casulties the Serbs and Albanians suffered during the campaign.

lunarchick - 03:38pm Mar 31, 2001 EST (#1844 of 1864)
lunarchick@www.com

Slobo == a greedy 'nut'

This guy diverted $4Billion

He, his wife, and thugs:
targeted and killed people (including an editor of a 'free democratic' newspaper)

He may have acted as a greedy opportunist.

------

Can YOU list what the war was actually about, following the vacuum left by Tito, and the fall of the Berlin wall, and fall in revenues to Yugo from both USA and USSR

(20 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense