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?

rshowalter - 03:18pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6006 of 6023)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"The problems have been different each time," said Philip E. Coyle, a former assistant secretary of defense and director of operational testing, who helped write the report. "In each case, the thing that failed was something you'd have liked to have taken for granted. It just shows how hard this stuff is."

The report, which members of Congress plan to make public this week, is expected to fuel a contentious debate over how swiftly a missile system should be deployed and how much money should be spent developing one.

Mr. Rumsfeld has argued that the United States should deploy a system quickly to dissuade its rivals from trying to acquire ballistic missiles. He contends that no weapon system works perfectly and that a limited missile defense can be gradually improved and expanded.

During his recent trip to Europe, Mr. Rumsfeld gave NATO defense ministers a paper stating that the United States "will likely deploy test assets to provide rudimentary defenses to deal with emerging threats."

The Pentagon has also been studying a proposal from Boeing, the lead contractor on a missile defense system, to install a basic antimissile system involving five interceptors in Alaska by 2004. The system, which would violate the ABM treaty, would use existing radar and rockets as interim technology until more advanced systems were ready.

But in an appearance by Mr. Rumsfeld on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Democrats vigorously questioned those proposals and expressed strong reservations about speeding up a system they said remained unproven.

The Democrats have also raised concerns about the Bush administration's threat to withdraw from the ABM treaty if Russia refuses to amend it. Mr. Bush has argued that the treaty prevents the United States from testing promising technologies, like sea-based or airborne weapons.

Pentagon officials have said none of the tests planned through 2002 would violate the treaty. But aides to Mr. Rumsfeld are restructuring that schedule, possibly to add tests in a few months that could violate the treaty's prohibitions, a senior administration official said.

Though the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation's report is nearly a year old and does not contain classified information, Pentagon officials asked the House Government Reform Committee, which obtained a copy, not to release it publicly, in part because they said it contained inaccuracies.

But Democrats contend that the Defense Department does not want damaging new details about its testing program to be released just as Mr. Rumsfeld is preparing to ask Congress to increase financing for missile defense research and development by $2.2 billion.

"In the mad rush to deploy, I suspect that any bad news is not what they want Congress to be debating or the public to be aware of," said Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has been a critic of missile defense. "This has huge ramifications. It should be part of the public dialogue and part of a very sober assessment of the system."

rshowalter - 03:20pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6007 of 6023)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Now, gisterme , while I'm getting my references, you and others might like to search "NAZI" on this thread.

Also "shuck."

Also "sisters of mercy".

gisterme - 03:45pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6008 of 6023)

midmoon 6/23/01 11:11am

midmoon wrote: "This is an attempt to analyze a name in this forum the "rshowalter".

The "r" may stands for the writer's first name "Robert" or the last name "Robertson".

I any case he may be a descendent of Robin Hood a regendary English outlaw of the 12th century.

The "showalter" is trickier in some degree but can be easily devided into two parts the "show" and the "alter".

The first meaning of "show" is to "present to view".

"Alter" means other.

Therefore he is now showing intentionally and repeatedly something other than what the ordinary US citizen thinks.

The US folks are originally peace loving people.

To alter this,rshowalter is now furthering the hostile and antagonistic feelings against to the peace among the US people through internet.

Why is this man doing this?

Why does not the alter ego in this man's mind function its role to refrain this man's ego from doing those humble things?

Is there Anybody knows it?"

That shoe DOES seem to fit Robert Showalter, midmoon. Robert's trying to SHOW how to ALTER the truth.

Showalter's trying to prove the "culture of lies" theory right here on this thread. He's trying to prove that if he and his cohorts produce enough volume of words most won't get read or checked. I'd guess that if anybody analysed the word content of Robert's posts the words, disregarding connectives, "check", "checking", "staff" and "staffing" would be by far the most common. Robert has several times proclaimed that a large volume of words is necessary to reach a particular point.

I'd also guess that the percentage of rshowalter, lunarchick and possumdag posts that have anything to do with ballistic missile defense would be about 10% or less. There definately seems to be a hidden agenda here. Otherwise, why all the unrlated posts?

Of course, Robert won't say why all the unrelated posts, eventhough he's been repeatedly asked.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense