![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (3140 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 11:25am May 3, 2001 EST (#3141
of 3147) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I'm open minded about MAD being the "best possible" way -- and
about "NMD" being a good way, also -- only, facts matter.
So far as I can see, current circumstances are
prohibitively dangerous, and NMD only makes things worse,
mostly because it cannot be done, but for strategic reasons, as
well.
Isn't prohibition worth thinking hard about as well?
cookiess0
- 11:26am May 3, 2001 EST (#3142
of 3147)
rshowalter - 11:09am May 3, 2001 EST (#3135 of 3140)
every nation has a right to maintain or have nuclear weapons.
Even Iraq. A narrow focus on select nations creates a group of haves
and have nots.Thus your focus on Iraq is bigoted.
rshowalter
- 11:28am May 3, 2001 EST (#3143
of 3147)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
We disagree on a premise. I don't think any nation ought
to have a right ot have nuclear weapons.
I'm ecumenical about my rejection of nuclear weapons. I'm against
them. Anybody elses. Or ours.
cookiess0
- 11:38am May 3, 2001 EST (#3144
of 3147)
Isn't prohibition worth thinking hard about as well?
It didn't work during the Temprest movement and it certainly
does not work with other drugs. Yet you want to say it will work
with nuclear weapons:)
gisterme
- 11:45am May 3, 2001 EST (#3145
of 3147)
"...All else fails, move to an island." Would that be
Manhattan island?
rshowalter
- 11:46am May 3, 2001 EST (#3146
of 3147)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
That's a question that involves specific details. Making nuclear
weapons is a good deal harder than taking a drink -- and a lot less
innocent. I believe that prohibition is worth a hard, careful look
-- and paying for in some limited ways. A lot of other people do,
too. I'd say the same for other weapons of mass destruction -- where
some treaties seem to be working.
Compared to the alternatives, prohibition looks attractive to me
-- not forgetting that it would take hard work.
deniseny
- 11:47am May 3, 2001 EST (#3147
of 3147)
I have been lightly following this forum since I read yesterday's
article regarding Bush's Missle Defense Plan.
I can see that the general majority appears to be against his
plan - with the exception of the portion related to partial nuclear
disarmament. I did some searching on the web and I found some
citizen-based websites that lobby for people. I thought I would post
a few links in case anyone would like to submit their opinion in the
hopes of enacting some positive change or influence.
Will it make a difference? Who knows? But if we do nothing the
result will be having our futures planned for us. Here are the
links:
Friends Committee on National
Legislation
Common
Cause
Citizen
Lobby
Citizens for
Participation in Political Action (CPPAX) and finally,
Working For
Change (a/k/a Act for Change www.actforchange.com). This is one
of the best lobbying and activism sites on the web.
So here is your change to let your voice really be heard!
Denise
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.
| 
