![[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?
    (3154 previous messages)
benmturk
- 01:46pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3155
of 3166)
The emotional argument is unfortunately the weakest. Arguing on
the emotional level (that we should disarm cuz it's right) will only
work on people who share those values.
I hope when you said the strategic and technical arguments were
"dead" you ment proven against NMD because there has been no real
solid argument for.
This forum, like so many others I've been to, has come to the
point where the ignorant disenting voices have given up. At most
they only occasionally bark in Disbelief and now what's left is a
group of people who basically agree on an issue. At this point it is
crucial that those people do something. If you aren't members or
contributors to an organization that acts on these issues you should
be. If you aren't writing to senetors or the prez you should be.
These forums could serve a very important purpose as a jumping
board, people come here share ideas and from here we could get
organized or at least share ideas of organizations where we could
get active.
I suggest that since we know the argument is dead, use this forum
to plug some groups and advocate some action. For example I'm a
member of the Green Party, the only party that opposed the missle
defense system in the last election. If you join or get on lthe
mailing list there are many volunteer and action opportunities.
Has anyone else got a group they want to plug here, now?
I hope this isn't against the NYT rules...
benmturk
- 02:14pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3156
of 3166)
Many people on this board are confused about why the US is acting
as we are. The trick of it is the US has functioned on a two front
foreign policy.
front 1) US against the world.
front 2) US against the american citizens.
Our foreign policy has been consistantly to pursue realpolitic,
especially to the benefits of the businesses that appoint our
leaders (we all know by now that elections are crooked right?) This
policy is generally not accepted at home, with good reason. Why
should pursuit of corporate interest cost in security of the
american citizen? So the US wages a second continuous war against
the american people. It's a propaganda war. Which is made especially
easy by the fact that the same businesses that own the government
also own the press, or fund the press through advertising.
There is one way to increase security of the US citizens: stop
killing other people and giving them reason to hate us.
Unfortunately this method is not approved by the businesses cuz they
profit from killing other people. They also profit from the pretend
security, more military.
Since we're already the source of world animosity dropping all
defense now is a suicide. Scaling back our agression and not
pursueing first strike nuclear capabilities is a good step towards
gradually reducing the demand for US blood.
Mutual Assured Destruction was known as MAD. The NMD is the first
step in the MADder version, NUT, Nuclear Utilization Theory. These
cold war fools are still running the country. I don't have reason to
trust em, and I'm an american. Why should the Russians trust em?
rshowalter
- 02:21pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3157
of 3166) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I trust 'em some, at the level of talk. They're dong the best
they can, odds are, same as the rest of us. In the world as they
understand it. But they need to check their work, and sometimes be
checked, also same as the rest of us.
******
gisterme
5/3/01 1:09pm
It'll be 3:15 EST before I get the links
collected. But establishing a core fact , and having theat
fact widely understood, would, I believe make nuclear disarmament
easier to sell, and prohibition easier to enforce, as well.
The fact is this. Many people, including especially young males,
fight if they are threatened enough. Or, after they've been injured
enough. Even if "rationality" would lead you to expect something
else. Cops, drill sergeants, and lot of other people know this.
For this reasons, nuclear weapons carry an inherent consequence
that should deter their use (and therefore make prohibition more
effective, even when dealing with madmen, who do sometimes occur.)
Unless you really can exterminate the social group you damage
with a nuclear weapon, and all the people who care deeply about them
-- you will have assured your destruction by using a nuclear weapon
-- if the people involved can fight back at all. (Japan was a
special case. )
That means that there are no rational uses of nuclear weapons for
anything but extermination. The weapons are inherently unstable.
That makes them bad weapons -- because they produce effects that
will hurt those who use them.
We've been assuming, much too often, that the best level of
threat -- the safest, is the maximal threat. It isn't true. Too much
threat, too much injury, and people fight back.
It is a reason to be polite, and a reason not to use
nuclear weapons.
A reason that even most madmen can understand.
I've more links, and more arguments -- but this fact about threat
response is, I believe essential. Back in an hour.
phequad
- 02:27pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3158
of 3166)
I don't understand what Mr. Bush is saying. correct me if I'm
wrong. He wants to break a promise America made to the USSR{Russia}
in 1972 so we can spend billions of dollars to build something that
might not work. What happened to the integrity he promised to persue
as president? Was that just another promise he doesn't feel he needs
to live up to?
rshowalter
- 02:28pm May 3, 2001 EST (#3159
of 3166)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Good news:
North Korea Extends Missile Test Moratorium by THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-NKorea-EU.html
  (7
following messages)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
