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?

artemis130 - 12:08am May 3, 2001 EST (#3099 of 3130)
caveat venditor

violet55b0 - 09:15pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3095 of 3098)

Terrorists can carry bombs in suitcases; toxic gas in thermo bottles. Gee, I hope I didn't give away any military secrets.

Hey - according to Rumsfeld, the Russians will sell anything to anybody and we all know the Russians have developed 50 different biological agents at least as deadly as a nuke because the CIA had them convinced we'd done the same, so.......

Either Rumsfeld is lying or Rumsfeld is lying. Take your pick.

artemis130 - 12:30am May 3, 2001 EST (#3100 of 3130)
caveat venditor

In case any have missed the logic train:

Rumsfeld premise no.

1) Russians will sell any technology to any terrorist or rogue state at anytime, so we need an NMD.

(However, if the Russians will sell anything to anyone, anytime - including bio-weapons, then we don't need an NMD because bio-weapons are easier & cheaper to deploy & virtually untraceable.)

Therefore, it's either:

1) not true that the Russians will sell anything to anyone, anytime.

2) not true that an NMD is an effective defense worthy of breaking existing treaties, sparking new arms races and spending +100 billion on.

Either way, he's lying about something.

How's my logic?

bhandell - 03:20am May 3, 2001 EST (#3101 of 3130)

A couple of thoughts arise!

The US already spends more money on its armed forces than any other country on the planet (including China with 4 times the US population). There is today no country with the capability to invade the US using traditional soldiers (not by a long shot). But there is still a strong majority to keep those armed forces, to what end do I ask?

Furthermore, there is no country with a nuclear missile armada that could really threaten the US. Yet Bush proposes to build a system against that such a threat. The only country that has any capabilities in that range is Russia wich I understand might be included in the allies that would also get to live under the shield. Another thing to add to the ekvation is that there is a price tag to such a system (100-200 Billion $). Not exacly cheap when you consider that no one knows if it will work!

It seems to me that the US spends an incredable amount of money in order to feel safe. All in the home of the brave.

Björn Handell Sweden

whannan2 - 03:36am May 3, 2001 EST (#3102 of 3130)

All I've read so far is the same old negative responses and excuses. Does anyone have any positive ideas they could share as to how we keep our country safe and free for the next 50 years?

whannan2 - 03:44am May 3, 2001 EST (#3103 of 3130)

Sec. Rumsfeld summed it up as well as it can be done - the choices are: appeasement, isolationism, mutually assured distruction, on-going defense initiative, or bury our heads in the sand. No one defense system will protect us against all attempts to cause damage to our country, but each system adds to our protection. If you have a better idea lets hear about it.

leungki - 04:35am May 3, 2001 EST (#3104 of 3130)

whannan2,

Do not believe the lies of the American press such as: "world reaction cautious" proferred by the NYT. The leader should read: "world reaction horrified".

The question is not how will you keep America safe, it's more how are the rest of us going to safeguard ourselves against America. The US has fought ONLY wars of aggression in the past thirty years. Vietnam, Granada, Panama, the gulf, Somalia, Uganda, the Balkans. It is to attack these "dangerous" adversaries that the US spends over $300 Bn a year. Please understand that in many parts of Europe, it is the USA which is considered to be the greatest threat to world peace.

leungki - 04:51am May 3, 2001 EST (#3105 of 3130)

When will Americans understand that 95% of the world's population wants just one thing: to live in peace. If the US wasn't so damned threatening and interventionist all the time, there would be no Osama bin Laden's to lead revolts against US power.

I've also heard that McVeigh's execution will be televised. Even the PRC doesn't stoop that low. Anyone know if there will be commercial breaks ?

leungki - 05:15am May 3, 2001 EST (#3106 of 3130)

Showalter and Gisterme,

The reliable interception of ballistic missiles is not technically impossible if sufficient billions of dollars are wasted on it. That is not, IMO the issue. The issues are political, does the US WANT to afford it ? And is the US ready to bear the consequences of building this system.

There is no doubt that the decision to deploy NMD will be perceived as a means for the US to make pre-emptive nuclear strikes behind the protection of its anti-missile system. This perception will be comforted by the recent US decision to end a 1992 moratorium on nuclear arms development (you may know that the US recently launched a program to develop so-called low-yield nukes presumably they only kill 10K-20K people at a time instead of millions - how humane). The consequence is of course a new arms race on expensive items that we fervently pray will never be used.

Also, let's quit calling it the Bush missile plan. Bush has barely enough brains to formulate dinner plans let alone any sort of coherent national or international policy.

ch1344 - 07:13am May 3, 2001 EST (#3107 of 3130)

The point about rogue states is that they are not conventional states with a well disciplined army. It seems unlikely to me that such a state would use missiles to attack the US. A terrorist attack is far more likely along the lines of the Oklahoma or World Trade Center bombings.

artemis130 - 07:14am May 3, 2001 EST (#3108 of 3130)
caveat venditor

Also, let's quit calling it the Bush missile plan. Bush has barely enough brains to formulate dinner plans let alone any sort of coherent national or international policy.

Quite so, it's the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz missile plan. Born & bred in the Wolf's Lair.

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense