![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (5260 previous messages)
lunarchick
- 10:00am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5261
of 5281)
lunarchick@www.com
'A texas oil man and former KGB spy' .. stood on the castle
terrace ... as the world media - flashed.
lunarchick
- 10:06am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5262
of 5281)
lunarchick@www.com
that members of Congress have never seen the actual missile
targeting plans developed by the military in response to
presidential directives. How dare Congressmen cash their
pay cheques when they obviously don't do their job!?!
rshowalter
- 10:07am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5263
of 5281) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Comments on shifts in paradigms and positions, by gisterme
.
MD5206 gisterme
6/15/01 2:31pm . . . MD5221 gisterme
6/15/01 5:12pm
Change can be greatly for the better -- or for the worse.
A time for being careful, about facts and relations, too.
"Sincerity" and "strong subjective feelings" ought not to cut it
here -- because so much matters.
rshowalter
- 10:18am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5264
of 5281)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD5145 rshowalter
6/14/01 7:51pm .... cites several articles citing reasons for
concern, and one I believe merits special attention, because it
relates to the manufacture of "consent" and the projection of
"artificial sincerity" according to patterns perfected, in detail,
by the Nazis.
In Virginia, Young Conservatives Learn How to Develop and Use
Their Political Voices by BLAINE HARDEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/11/politics/11CONS.html
linked to md4771
I feel that Harden's article ought to be read, carefully indeed,
by people who have questions about the responsibility, and
dominance, of right wing patterns in the Republican party, and in
America as a whole.
Any competent staff can find a great deal of information about
the connections of the CIA, the Bush family, and the right wing of
the Republican party -- and patterns of misinformation, and conflict
of interest, that concern many. I believe that it is important that
the staffs of nations concerned with their own survival, and the
interests of their people, consider these things, among many other
things -- in judging when to defer to the judgement and good will of
American leaders of the "military-industrial complex" on matters
that cannot be checked.
With care, we are at a time when much good may come. But care
ought to be morally forcing here.
civiltongue
- 10:40am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5265
of 5281)
I am opposed to NMD in its present form for the following
reasons:
too easily overwhelmed -- the "rogue nation" need only build a
few more missiles.
too easily circumvented -- many other ways for a "rogue nation"
to attack us.
too soon obsolete -- weapons technology is moving very fast and
always favors the attacker.
too much money.
I prefer the following alternative. Missile launches are
high-energy events and are relatively easy to detect. Let's enhance
our ability to detect launches, coupled with massive retaliatory
capability, so that any "rogue nation" would be committing national
suicide if they attacked an American city.
rshowalter
- 10:47am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5266
of 5281)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Wouldn't it be better to prohibit the missiles - in ways that
worked? If Putin and Bush were agreed -- and they do have much
common ground related to the issue -- that wouldn't be unthinkable.
It could be done a great deal sooner than any missile defense, I
believe. (Perhaps not, but it would be worth serious investigation
-- something that doesn't seem to be proceeding.)
If the truth about the past were clear, much could be cleaned up
about the present, and the future. Perhaps, then, and missile
defense would cease to make any sense at all, to anyone in a
position of authority anywhere.
civiltongue
- 10:58am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5267
of 5281)
Wouldn't it be better to prohibit the missiles -
in ways that worked?
What would those ways be?
A strongly-worded U.N. resolution? Angry jawboning by President
Bush? Ordering the DEA to intercept missiles as well as drugs?
Deploying the L.A.P.D. SWAT team?
If the so-called "nations of concern" were amenable to following
international law, permitting on-site inspections, etc., then they
wouldn't be "nations of concern."
midmoon
- 11:02am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5268
of 5281)
Dear Lunar Chick,
Note this verse ,too.
****
The host tells the guest of a nice dream the host dreamed
An Aussy guest tells the host of a nightmare the guest dreamed
The host and the guest now telling each one's dream to each other
are also dreamers in a day time nap dream
****
Your pen name reminds me of a chicken fled from the notorious
Wells' animal farm.
You must have associated with the monkeies and the dogs at the
farm ,isn't this right?
How do you think about changing your pen name to a more arrogant
ones such as Lunar South Pacific ,Lunatic Ocean Star,etc?
I hope you will find a very nice one.
Good luck in it!
lunarchick
- 11:05am Jun 16, 2001 EST (#5269
of 5281)
lunarchick@www.com
blurb
  (12
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
