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 - 06:38pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5685 of 5746)

lunarchick wrote: lunarchick 6/21/01 5:20pm "...--- or do Americans 'twist' history?"

If you want to see untwisted history, dear, I'd suggest that Hollywood movies should be the last place you look. Those folks make their money by providing entertainment, and apparenly in the case of the "Pearl Harbor" movie, by pandering. So far as Hollywood movies are concerned there has seldom been any claim of historical accuracy...not so many $$ in that.

In fairness to the very talented folks in Hollywood, I'll add that they hold no monopoly on "twisting for the buck". They're NOT historians any more than anybody else in the world-wide movie industry.

gisterme - 07:15pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5686 of 5746)

Lou Mazza wrote: "...Who says life doesn't follow art?..."

Not I, Lou. I don't say that. :-)

WRT "George Johnson", I don't have a clue. I haven't noticed anybody by that name posting here on this thread. Robert loves to guess about identities. He thought I was Condoleeza Rice at first. Now that's a hoot. :-) At least he DID get the nationality right. He didn't do quite as well with almarst whom he thought was president Putin. Every time somebody that's half-way literate and/or knowledgeable appears here on this thread Robert thinks (hopes?) he's talking to some high government official. When he finds out he's not (which seems to take a lot of convincing) then he assigns them a proxy identity and presumes they represent the views of important people, or even governments, especially when the assumption suits the Robert Showlter world view.

Personally, I like the use of monikers because such use tends to prevent self promotion and to level the palying field for anybody who wants to participate in the discussion...kings, paupers and all between have equal weight...if they can get a word in edgewise. I can't help but wonder why any true communist wouldn't like that "all equal" situation better than artificial stratification...unless, of course, self promotion is playing into the equation.

dirac_10 - 07:18pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5687 of 5746)

mazza9 - 06:19pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5684 of 5685)

LouMazza is Mazza9. I don't use handles, aliases or other foolishness'. Who's George Johnson?

I'm not sure. I was accused of being him before. Something about a clever plot by the NYTimes to distract Robert from his mission or something. Something to do with e-mail or something. Some kind of a plot. I wasn't sure who was "exposed" this time or if it was the same sinister George Johnson.

Perhaps, someone will spell it out.

Best Regards,

George

possumdag - 07:39pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5688 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

SERBIA .. coming to terms with their recent history re WAR crimes .. people are talking about the happenings under Slobo, the parts they played, wanting to put together the pieces of the jig-saw to find T R U T H

gisterme - 07:46pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5689 of 5746)

gisterme 5/18/01 6:52pm

gisterme 5/18/01 6:52pm

gisterme 5/18/01 7:05pm

These are some links to a summary of BMD pro and con arguements that were posted a while back. I'm going to repost them to see if any newcomers might have something to add...

dirac_10 - 07:47pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5690 of 5746)

They need a truth commission. The war criminals of the world almost always get away scott free. Best to clear the air.

gisterme - 07:50pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5691 of 5746)

So...let's sum up this discussion with regards to ballistic missile defense.

Arguements "FOR" a BMD:

1. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy requires having large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons "at the ready". It is a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Building missile defenses is one way to begin moving away from the "balance of terror" concept.

2. A BMD would be a significant bargaining chip that could accelerate the world-wide stand-down of ICBMs. A partial missile shield would allow the US to unilatirally take down a significant number of strategic nukes and their delivery systems.

That could be the beginning of a "disarms" race that might bring the US and Russian strategic arsenals to a small number, perhaps about on par with others who have strategic nukes. At that point (or some point before) the missile shield could be shared with all as a sort of "insurance policy" that should simplify negotiations to get rid of the remainder of the strategic nuclear missiles in the world.

3. A BMD is technically feasable including countermeasures to defeat decoys and other means of deception.

4. An effective missile shield would give some protection, both real and psycological against a suicide attack from from some small nation with rogue leadership or an independent terrorist organization that has managed to buy, beg, borrow, steal or secretly build an ICBM or MRBM.

5. The pursuit of solutions to tough military technical problems in the past century has cost a lot but has produced a windfall of scientific and technological advancement, especially in consumer products, as a collateral benefit. There's no reason to think that BMD research would yield any less return on the investment even if the BMD were never acutally deployed.

6. Certain segments of the Military Industrial Complex could be kept buisy re-processing that first bunch of US warhead cores into nuclear power plant fuel. More of those folks could be used to be sure we know how to build and operate nuclear power plants safely...a way to use at least part of the MI complex to beat weapons into plowshares.

7. Non-nucler BMD components are safer and less expensive to maintain than strategic nuclear weapons components.

8. An effective BMD could provide protection against an accidental strategic launch or a launch due to a small conspiracy anywhere in the world.

9. Removal of the entire ICBM class of nuclear weapons will reduce the worst case nuclear scenario from "total anihilation" to "someplace got devistated".

10. There will still be plenty of tactical nukes to assure defense of home or allies from attacks by otherwise overhwelming conventional forces.

(55 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense