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 - 04:26pm Apr 18, 2001 EST (#2364 of 2366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 4/12/01 8:54am

lunarchick - 04:34pm Apr 18, 2001 EST (#2365 of 2366)
lunarchick@www.com

On the above: The military are sometimes seen as sponges that take in huge numbers of people who might otherwise be unemployed. Of course the budget of the military army could be re-allocated to social purposes and these armies deployed to improve social good.

~ In relation to the post-WWII rescue of Germany and Japan .. the sucess of these countries post war may relate to the fact that within each were educated, skilled, competent workers. With post-WWII assistance their talents were defected into industrial and commercial development. Both countries were relieved of military expenditure.

~ 80:20 rule & Pareto http://www.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/ecowww/rdixon/pareto.html

~ 80:20 (lighthearted) http://www.processedge.com/store/paper8020/whitepaper8020.htm

- 80:20 rule http://www.4hb.com/08jcparetoprinciple.html

~ http://www.cnyc.com/code/8020_spr00.html

--------

On Russia having an income one hundredth of that of the USA .. the test here would be to reduce all in the USA to an income of 1% of what they now have .. at a guess, 80% would starve to death immediately. Suggests that in Russia there may be an informal economy in operation. To raise standards She (Mother Russia) would have to attract in foreign capital to get the place 'moving' .. to do this external decision making would occur.

Freedom of the Press is again a factor, the way Putin is moving it that will be BBC and DW input. The problem for him is that DW are focusing, not on what Putin considers to be the P-Agenda, rather on the need for 'freedom of the press'. Putin is reported by them as saying that he will only talk to the Press on HIS issues. But what are they .. no one reports .. because they focus on the philosophical principle of freedom of speech. And yes, i can see that Putin will get fed-up if people just lay out a red-carpet of complaint on the free media. This is where he should show leadership and have a campaign that focuses and spotlights one area of issues at a time. His move to put a LEGAL framework in place was his first step .. perhaps an economic statement is his second.

-----

On learning languages. It's great to have English. This is the 'world' language for business and as such thee language to have, and or, aquire. There are 760Billion people who should have it, who haven't .... sounds like a big market out there, and yet not many Russians are seemingly able to get out of Russia to aquire English in an English-speaking cultural setting. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140154051/o/qid=987625758/sr=2-2/102-5419015-3970530 People have to immerse themselves in a new language to make progress .. this is why Russia ought to be having 'exchange' programs to all English speaking world zones. This would help the young to establish 'networks' they could later use for export purposes, be that tourism-into-Russia, or goods out. It seems Russia might offer Russian courses to those wishing to learn their language, other than via tapes/cd's (which are fantastic).

~ the cia.com world map was funny ... yet probably too complex for Bush!

rshowalter - 04:38pm Apr 18, 2001 EST (#2366 of 2366)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is worth asking -- from the point of view of both Russia and China --- suppose that (Russia or China) had bad economic and cultural relations with the United States -- but good economic relations with all the rest of the world? Would (Russia or China) seriously miss the economic and cultural friendship of the United States?

What, in detail, would the US be able to do to prevent good relations between (China or Russia) and other nations?

Are there really national objectives of China or Russia that the US can veto, against the will of the rest of the world?

On many sides, this seems to be the assumption.

This assumption seems to me to corrupt all concerned. It seems to me to be based on bluff, on one side, and a lack of courage and imagination on the other side. An inability of nation states to deal flexibly, imaginatively, and with discipline with each other doesn't need to be assumed.

The Cold War ought to be over.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense