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 - 03:14pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4356 of 4466)

Michael Armel wrote: "...China is apparently executing some amphibious military meneuvers. Do US plans exacerbate the China-Taiwan situation?..."

That's a good focus point, Michael and an interesting question to speculate about. I presume you mean US BMD plans.

If development of a BMD leads to large scale strategic disarmament by the US and Russia, as I think it will, especially if the disarmament is to the point where their strategic arsenals wind up on par with China's, I can't see what China would have to complain about. China's relative strategic power would be increased with a corresponding reduction of potential threat.

I don't see why that would have much impact on the Taiwan situation except as another opportunity for arm-waving. Taiwan is definately NOT a strategic nuclear target for anybody, especially the rest of China. Expensive and limited systems designed to stop nuclear-tipped ICBMs are not likely to be cost effective for use against conventionally armed scuds.

As far as Chinese amphibious maneuvers go, that seems like their business. I seriously doubt that China would be able to successfully invade Taiwan even if there were no outside intervention. Water is just too hard to cross without sea and air supremacy. I don't think China could achieve or sustain either in near proximity to Taiwan's coast.

gisterme - 05:49pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4357 of 4466)

rshowalter wrote: "...But here, lies are very dangerous. There are too many of them. Unless checking is morally forcing , or in any event, forced one way or another - we don't have a stable situation. But there's hope -- internet usages make it hard to hide..."

Robert, I agree that lies are dangerous and even a single one is too many. But I do declare that I can make no sense of this paragraph after the second sentence.

What do you mean by "morally forcing"? How would one apply force to the "morals" of another without applying force to all the rest of him too? And when you say "forced one way or another" does that mean there is more than one direction that the target's "morals" might be forced? Would attempts to force "morals" on others really tend toward greater stability? Do you really think so, Robert?

gisterme - 06:09pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4358 of 4466)

rshowalter wrote: "In The Wicked Tao of Lee http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/opinion/30DOWD.html MAUREEN DOWD deals with Republican leaders as total scoundrels, frauds, and criminals, for what appear to be good reasons..."

That's some of the most cyinical whining I've ever read. I hope all that spleen-venting makes her feel better about backing the wrong horse. Good reasons, Robert? What reasons?...beacuse this gal's mad at the Republicans? Sheesh!

It is always easy to deride people you've never met who inhabit places you've never been and will never be.

gisterme - 07:13pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4359 of 4466)

rshowalter wrote: "...Let me repeat my opinion. We are dealing, now, with concerns about a presidential administration more serious than any before in history..."

Oh? More serious than any before in history? Really. Is that because we can look back on all other adminstrations and see that the fearmonger's predictions haven't come to pass for them? And so since we can't look at this administration with 20-20 hindsight (yet) the concerns are more serious than any before in history, as in..."the sky is falling, the sky is falling, chicken little!". Baawwwwk, Bock, bock cluck! :-)

Hookay, Robert; I can't help but think you must be a really paranoid person unless you're overstating the magnitude of your "concerns" just a bit there. For myself, feel far less concern about this president's leadership ability than I did about Bill Clinton's when he became president, especially for the second term.

In spite of your apparent rancor toward president Bush and all the emotional smoke, eggs and mirrors, you've posted here to demonstrate that, nothing of substance has been shown to make me doubt my confidence in him. Most of what you've posted about this administration so far has just been emotional-cotton-candy for those whom you think might want some. Very sweet, looks real big, but has almost no substance. In my opinion, intended to create a false impression for the impressionable, the ignorant or the stupid. But badmouthing folks in power comes easy and is sort of an accepted thing in political activism, I suppose. This is the REAL result of a culture of lies, isn't it? But, after all, there is the first amendment. Too bad there's not a constitutional requirement for everything we say to be the truth.

Is that what you meant by "morally forcing"? I'm still baffled by that concept. I'm having trouble working out the mechanics... :-)

sunflowerbrilli - 07:39pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4360 of 4466)

Why share missle technology... Why have nuclear weapons at all.... Why not have joint Russian American Education to feed the world? Why not share a medical breakthrough for cancer? Why not elect new leaders in both nations? My prayer.

gisterme - 07:42pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4361 of 4466)

From the Skullbone article rshowalt 5/30/01 1:05pm:

".... In trying to realize his dream of staging professional concerts in the middle of nowhere, he is finding himself caught battling two small- town forces: the racist legacy of Skullbone, which could frighten away potential bands, and the local churchgoers who disapprove of the alcohol and strangers in this formerly dry county.

Sounds like Mr. Blankenship needs to reevaluate his business model. :-)

(105 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense