![[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?
    (5616 previous messages)
gisterme
- 10:14pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5617
of 5636)
rshowalter wrote: "...gisterme , do you have any objection to the
NYT editorial on nuclear matters today?"
Of course not, Robert. No objection. Anybody can write whatever
they want. I also don't disagree with most of that editorial.
There's no reason to believe the president Bush doesn't take
president Putin's statement about MIRVs seriously. Let the boys BOTH
get done with their posturing then we'll see what happens with
negotiations.
As I've said several times before, I think it highly unlikely
that the US would or should unilaterlly withdraw from the 1972 ABM
treaty and have also said that the US probably won't unilaterally
build a BMD, even though it could.
The reason that I think the US won't do either is that it is not
in Russia's best interest to put the US in a position where it feels
it has to do either, especially since the US seems willing to do the
project jointly with Russia. Remember that the BMD is NOT intended
as a shield against Russia, a point that Mr. Putin has acknowledged
that he understands. He said that he didn't think the missile shield
itself was a threat to Russia. It's also not in Russia's best
interest to increase the MIRVs on it's ICBMs. I think both sides
realize that increasing warheads is just money down the rathole
since they can never be used. Shredding paper or not doesn't change
that fact.
Russia needs a product to sell for cash and they know how to
build great missile airframes among other things. Having a product
to fill a market niche = cash. Plus by participating in a joint BMD
project, Russia itself should get the same protection as the US
against a madman attack...the real point of the BMD. There is also
the implication of a significant technological exchange, something
that could only be to Russia's advantage.
Finally, as with the ISS, there is no better way to build trust
and confidence than to work together on some significant projects.
Mistakes get made by all sides, and there may occasionally be some
red faces and ruffled hackels; but lessons get learned and mutual
benefits are also received. Isn't that how good, honest and enduring
relationsips are built? People don't just automatically know how to
get along with each other, especially those from different
cultures...they have to learn. It seems the same is true with
nations.
If there is to be "accomodation" it must be bilateral. That's
called cooperation. No sense of unilateral boot-licking or
condesension comes to mind with the term "cooperation". Wouldn't you
agree, Robert?
gisterme
- 10:14pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5618
of 5636)
Out for today.
rshowalter
- 10:20pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5619
of 5636) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Of course, accomodation has to be bilateral -- or, when things
get more complex, as they are here, multilateral and multilayered.
And it is surely true that accomodations take some time. And much
dialog.
. . . .
gisterme
- 10:24pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5620
of 5636)
rshowlater wrote: "...It is no credit to the United States when a
senior statesman can deserve what Friedman said of Kissinger,..."
Right if it were true, Robert. But Kissinger DOESN'T deserve what
Friedman wrote, which removes the entire basis for your statement.
Really gone this time...
lunarchick
- 10:24pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5621
of 5636)
lunarchick@www.com
If GI represents the psuedo CR & perfection, then, how come
there are problems in the world? Is the Bwsh administration 'that'
perfect? One wonders!
rshowalter
- 10:25pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5622
of 5636)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Just before leaving -- this indicates some progress since before
the election, it seems to me:
* * * *
A major effort to get the candidates to talk about nuclear
policy, and reductions, was made by the Global Security
Institute MD372 rshowalt
10/4/00 4:48am
Many distinguised americans were involved, including McNamara,
who signed the appeal rshowalt
10/4/00 5:08am , and adressed a meeting that, somehow the
campaigns found a way to ignore. MD375 rshowalt
10/4/00 5:23am
from http://www.gsinstitute.org/rsp/press/10_3.html#top
" The current hair-trigger alert deployment of
nuclear weapons directly threatens voters’ personal security while
unprecedented opportunities for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals with
Russia could provide more safety. Despite their impact on all
Americans, the burning nuclear issues facing America and the next
president have not been adequately addressed by the candidates.
Although some vague proposals on missile defense have been
mentioned, neither campaign has articulated its position on the
contradiction between the formally stated U.S. policy of relying
on nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and the U.S.’s legal
commitments – reiterated as recently as May 19 2000 at the United
Nations – to work for the global elimination of nuclear arms."
Well, the Bush administration is working on it -- and problems
with getting nuclear reductions largely hinges on related issues
.
Maybe passionate issues, subject to a lot of ill feeling,
defensiveness, and misinterpretation. Still, issues that ought to be
solved, for a lot of reasons, that include, but go beyond, nuclear
balances and missile defense.
lunarchick
- 10:27pm Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5623
of 5636)
lunarchick@www.com
Trust you guys got down to the end paragraphs in the JFK link
above!
interesting points on removing SViet leader
On trying to make The Kennedys look good / Johnston bad
  (13
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
