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?

possumdag - 12:41am May 8, 2001 EST (#3494 of 3504)
Possumdag@excite.com

BBC on Starwars

NYT Rumsfeld - Outer Space (Link to forum)

---- LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: UK can help stop Star Wars Financial Times; May 8, 2001 By HELEN WALLACE

From Dr Helen Wallace.

Sir, Despite lip service to consultation, President George W. Bush seems set to push ahead with US missile defence, or Star Wars, in the teeth of international opposition. Relations with China will inevitably worsen, and a new arms race will be triggered across Asia.

The UK is well placed to take a lead in stopping Star Wars. The Fylingdales and Menwith Hill bases in Yorkshire are a key part of President Bush's plans. Tony Blair should show strong leadership and refuse their use. The rest of the world would undoubtably be grateful.

Helen Wallace, Star Wars Campaign, Greenpeace UK, Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN

-----------

leungki - 02:57am May 8, 2001 EST (#3495 of 3504)

The US is sending envoys to the EU. The envoys are all military men. This is not the expected message.

almarst-2001 - 09:22am May 8, 2001 EST (#3496 of 3504)

applez101 5/8/01 12:03am

Even in a not so free world every one can hold its own oppinion;)

Have you being in all the places you mentioned?

By the way, what Kuala Lampur (in Moscow, I assume) is about?

coltakashi0 - 10:31am May 8, 2001 EST (#3497 of 3504)

It is not clear to me why people who claim to be against nuclear weapons are upset that offensive nuclear ICBMs (the US's) are going to be replaced with non-nuclear anti-ICBM systems. Right now, half of the nuclear weapons in the US inventory are intended for use against an attacker's missile forces. Isn't it more humane (and a lot nicer to people in the attacker's country) to just blow up their missiles in space than to blow up their people on the ground? And why do "greens" like the woman in the UK who wants to deny use of radars to the US in favor of RUSSIAN nuclear weapons being given a free pass onto the UK? The greens need to face the facts: The worst possible threat to the environment is a nuclear war. Anything that makes nuclear weapons less powerful and less effective is good for the environment.

rshowalter - 10:37am May 8, 2001 EST (#3498 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 5/7/01 10:47pm

Great reference, and a conclusion from you that I agree with.

IF

one assumes that America's objective is to project its power without limit -- and do that with no risk to Americans at all;

one assumes that missile defense can work;

one assumes that peaceful accomodations cannot work , and aren't even to be seriously tried; and

one assumes that missiles are the major threat, rather than a far fetched threat among some more real ones.

THEN what the administration is doing is "beautiful."

But none of these assumptions makes sense, from a distance, from America's point of view, or from the world's point of view.

And for these reasons -- missile defense is ugly and irresponsible, and, in many fundamental senses, wrong.

. . . . . . . .

A key question now is:

How many people and nations are among "those seeking to thwart the projection of U.S. power?"

Every person with good sense should be for limiting (and in the commission's sense, that means "thwarting") American military power.

This is especially true of countries other than the United States, but it should also be true of the United States itself -- because peace requires balance.

rshowalter - 10:38am May 8, 2001 EST (#3499 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It seems to me that, from a number of points of view, there are some beautiful things to do to deal with some very ugly Bush administration behavior.

It also seems to me that, if the Bush administration actually considers its assumptions explicitly, and gives things reasonable weights, it ought to see that there are other things it could be doing that make much better sense in the interest of the United States of America.

Analytically, aesthetically, morally and practically. (Often, and in this case, the different ways of looking at a situation point to similar conclusions.)

rshowalter - 10:44am May 8, 2001 EST (#3500 of 3504)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I believe this thread is a good place to consider these things -- people with some rank are looking at it, anyone can look at it, journalists do look at it, and yet, by journalistic conventions in place, it is not "high status" -- or even "news."

Everybody here, except for me, is anonymous or of ambiguous identity (and I use my name for a particular reason linked to an uncommon situation.)

This is fine place for finding graceful accomodations, that can be condensed and stimulate thought in more formal venues.

Mistakes made in here can be buried here -- good ideas set out here can diffuse elsewhere.

(There are drawbacks to the form, though -- I read all the postings I cited yesterday -- and today my eyes hurt.) But I believe progress is being made.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense