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?

gisterme - 07:41pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3303 of 3326)

applez0 wrote: "...As people become more and more tied into the global information networks, *misinformation* and libelous mischaracterizations have grown proportionally..."

Exactly the point I was trying to make in my last post (3301). Thanks for the nice summary.

rshowalter - 07:47pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3304 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You didn't answer my question, I noticed.

gisterme - 07:54pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3305 of 3326)

rshowalter wrote: "...Now that's NOT the truthful answer.

There will be a number of ways to show that, I believe..."

Go right ahead and show it, Robert but please use verifiable public records to do so. I'll retract what I said in the referenced post if you can. But don't expect me (or anybody else) to believe a bunch of smoke, eggs and mirrors about some anonymous poster on a public forum (becq) that YOU think MIGHT have been the POTUS, in spite of his denials, just because he says what you want to hear. That's not evidence at all. That's just another of those presumptions that you're trying to present as evidence.

rshowalter - 07:54pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3306 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Now, I'm not the only one who thinks threatening other nations with first strikes is standard us operational policy. "becq" does too.

Because of things told to me, I was excited, and impressed, to get a chance to interact with becq and our interaction took a full day, from beckq 9/25/00 9:19am .... to beckq 9/25/00 5:03pm .. which quotes me, and then goes on:

Quoting me: "American foreign policy would work better if we could be clearer in our internal and external signals"

" Quite true thats why America makes it quite clear and indicates that it will use nuclear weapons if it feels it needs to.

It is an interesting dialog. An American policy of first strike threats is assumed, by becq , throughout.

That dialog makes sobering reading, I believe, and most who looked at it would believe, as I did, and as some TIMES people did, that they were dealing with a credible source in becq.

possumdag - 07:57pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3307 of 3326)
Possumdag@excite.com

Sudan have a place on the Human Rights Commission. A guy i talked to from the Sudan told me how they 'hated' the Americans who didn't have a clue regarding peacekeeping, and were so happy to have the French and Brits come on the scene - who knew what to do, and how to do it, and could communicate with people! There are some exceptionally nice Sudanese people - one wishes them well.

possumdag - 07:59pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3308 of 3326)
Possumdag@excite.com

All strikes are a useless waste of time, first or second! Why think firstly in terms of destroying people, rather than maximising their national potentials .. and/or integrating them into a trading block that can offer positve assistance and improved infrastructure for development.

rshowalter - 07:59pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3309 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

So we have an argument about evidence -- that's standard enough.

Here's a question that I can reasonably expect an answer to:

Q: 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?

rshowalter - 08:05pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3310 of 3326)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The previous question was to gisterme .

If it can be shown that gisterme is a high official in the Bush administration, that would be interesting.

possumdag - 08:07pm May 4, 2001 EST (#3311 of 3326)
Possumdag@excite.com

gi-sterme may have headed for the county fair .. it's Friday Night!

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense