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?

lunarchick - 06:17pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3298 of 3313)
lunarchick@www.com

But while Mr Blair supports the US plans, Malcolm Savidge, a moderate Labour MP, expects more than 100 colleagues to sign a Commons early day motion that criticises Mr Bush's intention to abandon the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has been the cornerstone of nuclear arms control between the US and Russia.

As well as opposition from Labour MPs, the cabinet is not united in its view of the US plans. Mr Cook is privately sceptical about missile defences. Peter Hain, former foreign minister responsible for nuclear proliferation issues, did not disguise his hostility. However, Geoff Hoon, defence secretary, is supportive of missile defences. The defence ministry believes Britain should treat seriously the US administration's willingness to develop defences that could cover allies.

Mr Cook said on Thursday that the possibility of cover would be a "major factor" in talks between the US and Britain about the defences, which start next week.

possumdag - 06:18pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3299 of 3313)
Possumdag@excite.com

Hacker - shuts whitehouse IT down via a FLOOD TOOL

rshowalter - 06:22pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3300 of 3313)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For complicated enough situations, the only safe and reliable "system of agreed-upon-facts" has to be true.

The Russians, for decades, have been insisting in nuclear arms talks on a clear statement of historical facts. Americans have resisted. The Russians have been right on this matter. To go on, one needs the truth. Anything else is too likely to mislead in an unpredictable future, where people must act and cooperate on the basis of what they believe.
rshowalter 3/17/01 5:38pm

1132: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:02pm
1133: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:10pm
1134: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:13pm
1135: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:17pm
1136: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:24pm
1138: rshowalter 3/17/01 7:20pm

gisterme - 07:17pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3301 of 3313)

rshowalter wrote: "...Nobody will ever rule the world because they happen to have a nuclear weapon. People are just too hard to blackmail..."

Especially hard to blackmail when they have nuclear weapons of their own, Robert.

It's a good thing for all the slime-ball nations in the world today that the Americans weren't inclined toward conquest in 1945. Perhaps they were too preoccupied with rebuilding the economies and infrastructures of their vanquished enemies to notice the opportunity for conquest or plunder. That is EVIDENCE that the US has no dreams of military conquest. After all, the money spent on the Marshal plan could have bought enough nukes to conquer the world several times over in those days.

Given the proveable fact that the US is the first nation in history NOT to collect the traditional spoils of war, why is there all this presumption of bad intentions toward other nations by the US? There is NO evidence that those presumptions are true. What's even more troubling is that statements based on those false presumptions are presented as facts. The real fact is that those statements are lies. Here's an example:

"Has it been, for a long time now, standard US policy to threaten other countries with first strikes with nuclear weapons? That surely should be classified as both a violation of human rights, and a War Crime. A lot of countries have felt that way, for a long time."

The truthful answer to the inital question is "no, it has never been US policy to threaten a first strike on anybody since the end of WWII". US policy along those lines has always been public.

False presumption: The answer to the question is "yes".

False presumption based on presumed false answer: "That surely should be classified as both a violation of human rights, and a War Crime."

Falsehood/false conclusion, based on previous false presumptions: "A lot of countries have felt that way, for a long time."

rshowalter - 07:39pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3302 of 3313)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Your logic rests on this:

"The truthful answer to the inital question is "no, it has never been US policy to threaten a first strike on anybody since the end of WWII".

Now that's NOT the truthful answer.

There will be a number of ways to show that, I believe. If I had access to information that I know NYT people have, some good ones on this thread. For instance, if becq was Bill Clinton -- something I had good reason to believe, then the existence of first strike threats as SOP would be copiously verified on this thread.

I hadn't expected the point to be contested -- certainly "becq" , who some I dealt with at the Times felt was well informed, took threats with first strikes for granted.

Now, I've had some recent exchanges with a "cookie" (I'm not sure of the spelling) - who claimed to be "becq" - and claimed to not to be Clinton-- though he did claim a lot of knowledge on the subject matter. As denials of "becq"'s Clinton identity, the dialogs were, putting the matter mildly, inconclusive.

Would you agree that if threating first strikes was standard de facto US policy, that would have been wrong -- especially after the fall of the Soviet Union?

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense