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 - 08:23pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3471 of 3480)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- a "PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (6)

1309: almarst-2001 3/22/01 11:54am ..... 1310: almarst-2001 3/22/01 12:34pm
1311: almarst-2001 3/22/01 12:55pm ..... 1316: almarst-2001 3/22/01 1:25pm
1319: almarst-2001 3/22/01 2:03pm ...... stated postions that a well placed Russian might have stated:

"After reading the rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am let me please to comment on some.

"I will start backward, as it seems easier to answer.

"The people are scared and have being so since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most have seen a movies about those events and seen the consequences. The atmospheric nuclear tests where shown many times to wide public as well. Scary enough.

"The disarmament of rogue states is much more difficalt, but probably not entirely impossible, IF ALSO DONE SIMULTANIOUSLY.

"The mechanism and sequence of US-Russia massive nuclear force destruction can be worked out, but it is a much harder to do while ensuring simmetry and complete trust of verification, taking in account all mobil platforms and given a vast arsenals and land and see massess involved. The "devil" may be in details, but it may be possible, given sufficient preparations.

"However, the main problems remains unsolved:

"- A very huge disballance in conventional OFFENSIVE forces, including ofshore air and sea military bases and strategic Air Force and conventional stand-off wearpons.

"- Continues verification to prevent construction of a new arms of mass destruction.

"- Elimination of other types of non-conventional wearpons, particularely biologicals.

gisterme - 08:24pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3472 of 3480)

possumdag wrote: "...The communists elected in these countries went with the USSR becoming allies. (Power Greed and Corruption was the cement that held it all together)...."

I'm sure all those things helped (as they do anywhere else) but I suspect that the overwhelming presence of the Red Army as the enforcer of the will of Stalin had far more to do with the outcome of those elections than did the will of the people. Otherwise, why the iron curtain?

rshowalter - 08:24pm May 7, 2001 EST (#3473 of 3480)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

1322: almarst-2001 3/22/01 2:14pm ..... 1328: almarst-2001 3/22/01 3:12pm
1330: almarst-2001 3/22/01 4:33pm ..... 1341: almarst-2001 3/22/01 10:02pm .. expressed an impression that Russians may feel, that we should think about.

"The impression is, the US is villing to use its military when it can remain unpunished. I don't think anyone is afraid of occupation of Russia. But military can be used as a tool of pressure and domination and to extract favorable concessions. For this reason, as long as some countries are villing to use it in this way and not just for the legitimate defense, the ballance of powers or at leat, assimetrical neutralisation of a disballance is essential.

1345: almarst-2001 3/22/01 10:20pm ..and 1349: almarst-2001 3/22/01 10:46pm ... showed a reaction to bombing:

"In my view, the 72 days and nights of bombing of Serbia had the very dramatic and negative effect on international relations, arms race and the American image. For me, this one episode was sufficient to completely chenge my oppinion on Clinton's presidency.

"Little did I care about his personal affairs, even I think it was very wrong, but for the different reason - he put the president of the greatest superpower in a danger to be blackmailed. This is absolutly recless and in my view, deserve impeachement.

"But to bomb and destroy the civilian infrustructure of a country, killing at least 500 civilians and causing the direct damage of about $60bn, dropping more bombs then this country received during WWII was plainly criminal.

"This was a turning point when a Post-Cold War good will was lost. And not just of Russia.

"That event clearly illustrated the need to ensure that aggression has to have consequences for agressor. That realisation makes nuclear disarmament at current disballance of conventional power unrealistic.

"Not incidently, just after coming to power (again for the same reason), Putin modified the Russian military doctrine to permit the first use of a tactical nuclear wearpons.

" If not for this war, may be even American NMD would be seen much more favorably, rather then an attempt to neutralise the deterrent one may have against overhelming US conventional military. (emphasis supplied.)

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense