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?

rshowalter - 08:05am May 6, 2001 EST (#3349 of 3357)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I can't prove that this thread has been read by Russians. But I was pleased by what I feel was an exemplary letter from RAFAEL AKOPOV Deputy General Director, NTV
Moscow

OBJECTIVE RUSSIAN TV http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/opinion/L06RUSS.html

" The vast majority of key reporters and staff members at the television network NTV have remained with the station since the recent change in management. All of the reporters who were part of NTV's Chechnya team as well as those who reported on the Kursk submarine disaster are a core part of NTV. Tatyana Mitkova, who is held in the highest regard among journalists, is now the network's news editor. Vladimir A. Kulistikov, who has been an integral part of NTV's reporting since 1997, has been appointed first deputy general director.

" The talented people who create NTV's news and programming are dedicated to reporting objectively. Recent episodes of the puppet show "Kukly" have had the usual biting political satire. We invite critics to watch our programs and see that NTV is delivering hard-hitting reporting and critical commentary.

It is at least possible that the reasonable wishes outsiders may have for Russian press freedom are being accomodated in workable Russian ways.

rshowalter - 08:07am May 6, 2001 EST (#3350 of 3357)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think the NYT is doing wonderful things for decency, honesty, and the survival of the world.

Doing them with human caring and good craftsmanship. Doing them carefully -- and with characteristic grace and dash.

Maybe peace is the future -- and we're in a transition for that future. Plenty of times, people envision a future that turns out to be wrong, with expensive or lethal consequences that are independent of "good faith" in the sentimental sense. We need to take care to be right. rshowalter 5/2/01 10:25am

nygirl22 - 08:42am May 6, 2001 EST (#3351 of 3357)

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all "owned" by the arms lobby.

So to them it doesn't matter whether the technology works or not. As long as the arms industry can pocket hundreds of billions of tax dollars, they will go for it.

It's that simple.

No one with half of a brain would honestly believe that America actually needs such an expensive and yet unrealistic missile shield.

There are far cheaper and far more effective ways for the so-called "rogue" states to carry out mass destruction on US soil. The missile shield is B.S.

Bottom line: the current administration works for the arms industry. (just take a look at the background of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld)

rshowalter - 09:42am May 6, 2001 EST (#3352 of 3357)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If what you say is right -- and the case can be made copiously that you are -- then we are looking at subversion, and treason.

Perhaps there is another explanation.

Or, perhaps, if people start paying attention, better accomodations can be found, and good actions can flow from step by step modifications from what's been said and done.

Is the situtation, in the eloquent southern phrase, "beyond rememption?"

I think the answer is, "perhaps not."

possumdag - 10:09am May 6, 2001 EST (#3353 of 3357)
Possumdag@excite.com

MD subject of program to happen:

Talking Point BBC WORLD SERVICE Sun 6 May, 15:05 - 16:01 56 mins

The programme which encourages listeners to take part in a topical debate. You can e-mail: talkingpoint@bbc.co.uk

ABM treaty terms broken per 1972 - Nixon "we have taken historic first step in the limitation of Nuclear strategic arms .... no winners in an uncheck arms race .... "

Bush says treaty is a relic.

Is his plan a winner.

will all other treaties be under threat.

Jug Spencer Washington

Thinks it nec to move beyond the cold war

(won't usher in a 2nd cold war ?)

possumdag - 10:18am May 6, 2001 EST (#3354 of 3357)
Possumdag@excite.com

BBC ... continued

Russian caller says 'Rogue State threat not credible - rogues don't have capacity re building missiles .... because it could be wiped out in development by USA (who would bomb) .. if launched would be detected by satallite and country wiped out by USA.

BBC: 'Putin says basis of a positive dialogue'

Russia and China need placating.

If rogue state not credible, then Russian thinks the real target will be Russia and China.

George (Jud) Spencer .. has concerns re eg N Korea.

BBC: mutually assured distruction - old theory

Spencer says : terrorist attack has nothing to do with BalisticMissile attack - 2 types.

Spencer argues that if USA has Missile Defence then rogue states won't bother to develop weapons because the wepons wouldn't get through the Shield.

Caller thinks USA ought to help development of rogue countries by building bridges to NKorea/Iran .. they have dif interests to USA.

Spencer thinks USA to be Military Strong will deter conflict and keep peace and stability.

possumdag - 10:21am May 6, 2001 EST (#3355 of 3357)
Possumdag@excite.com

USA caller thinks the European left (hysteria) are the ones who objected to intermediate range missiles.

BBC : USA would be able to Attack .. and be immune from attack with sheild.

USA caller says US isn't into world domination and could go in and take oil fields if they wanted.

Accidental launch : is a threat esp from Russia/China

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense