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 - 08:18pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5702 of 5746)

dirac,

A BMD can only help back away from MAD if it tends toward a world-wide stand down of ICBMs to a verly low level or to zero. It looks like a way to get off "top dead center" at the negotiating table because it provides some protection against cheating. It's a trust builder, especially if it eventually becomes a joint program. That's based on the assumption that the US and Russia are no longer enemies and that neither country likes the expense and risk involved with unnecessarily maintaining large fleets of ICBMs.

The "other methods" arguement is a two-edged sword. Defending against other methods does nothing about ICBMs. Nobody wants to protect the windows but not the doors. So why protect the doors but not the windows? Both need to be protected.

gisterme - 08:22pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5703 of 5746)

rshowalter wrote: "...But the files to these html documents, with the jpegs, have been removed - - - strange . . . someone must care about them..."

Or not. I usually get rid of stuff I DON'T care about.

possumdag - 08:27pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5704 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI .. is the MAD you're talking about COMIC ?

gisterme - 08:27pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5705 of 5746)

dirac wrote: "(P.S. So how come alarmst gets to be Putin and I'm some nobody george johnson?)"

Ummm, could it be "wrong point of view"?

possumdag - 08:32pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5706 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

The LouMazza Mazza9 seemed to corrected re scientific facts, by the real NYT science posters, on a few occasions ... that's linked him in my mind with George Johnson .. excepting he's not exhibiting the mallicious tendency - as does Johnson here - raises the question as to why Johnson sticks around .. didn't he have a couple of books to write .. perhaps one on the Zachry Company ... working for the private sector rather than the Government ?

possumdag - 08:34pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5707 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

Interesting that PUTIN was 'chosen' to be Leader of Russia .. wasn't that on the cusp of the penultimate year of C20 .. quite a dramatic incoming .. perhaps the Yeltsin's Astrologer said 'Tonight's the Night' :)

possumdag - 08:37pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5708 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

Timing is everything. So if Putin puts 3 war heads on one missile ... heading in 3 directions .. at what point would the additional missiles cast off on varied projectories .. and how would Breyer Fox, Uncle Sam, catch ALL three ... ?

gisterme - 08:39pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5709 of 5746)

No, possumdag. The comic MAD might stand for "Mentality Absolutely Deranged"...maybe...it COULD...if we all just work together...fix things...with lots of STAFFING and a couple of extra layers of bureauacracy. :-) Or not. Only Alfred E. Neuman knows for sure. Or not.

possumdag - 08:42pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5710 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

National Security: Who would be stupid enough to invade the U.S.? And what would they do with us if they won? Would it be any worse?

dirac_10 - 08:43pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5711 of 5746)

gisterme - 08:18pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5704 of 5707)

A BMD can only help back away from MAD if it tends toward a world-wide stand down of ICBMs to a verly low level or to zero.

Certainly not the current trend.

It looks like a way to get off "top dead center" at the negotiating table

Nothing else seems to work, that's true.

because it provides some protection against cheating.

That, I don't see.

It's a trust builder, especially if it eventually becomes a joint program.

Ok, I buy that. The joint program thing with Russia could be very good news. That I can see as helping to end MAD.

That's based on the assumption that the US and Russia are no longer enemies and that neither country likes the expense and risk involved with unnecessarily maintaining large fleets of ICBMs.

I'm confident that the leaders of both countries, and the majority of the people don't want to be enemies, but no doubt some holdouts.

I found it interesting that one of the key guys that briefed GW before the trip was critical of his trust thing. Perhaps GW has a mind of his own, and is making some right decisions. At least listening to the right people.

And it's not the expense of the ICBM's I'm worried about.

The "other methods" arguement is a two-edged sword. ...Both need to be protected.

10-4. Do the best we can. Make it a very iffy, risky business, regardless. Sure as heck get the rather certain button pushing option off the table if possible.

(35 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense