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 - 09:22pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6213 of 6216)

lunarchick wrote ( lunarchick 6/27/01 8:16pm ): Can't work out why you insinuate that those offering competent inputs, such as Alex, have to sober up.

Let's see if I can help you work this out here, lunarchick:

Example 1 ( almarst-2001 6/27/01 6:03pm )

I had written in response to a "misguided" claim by almarst that BMD involves putting offensive nukes on satellites: "I don't believe anybody has proposed placing nuclear weapons on space platforms. That WOULD violate a treaty that nobody has even discussed changing so far as I know."

Her response to that was was: I see you assume just the US can abandon and violate treaties...

Huh? Almarst seems unable to follow the jist of what was said.

Example 2 ( gisterme 6/27/01 6:10pm ), I wrote: "...Correct me if I'm wrong, almarst, but I believe that the maximum number of launch vehicles and MIRV warheads/vehicle is limited by treaty for both the US and Russia. Unless the US builds another couple of Trident submarines (24 launchers per boat?) there would be no way for Trident xx missiles to replace the MXs. I've noticed no US plans to build more FBM submarines (though I'm sure that GD would love to). There are at most three shipyards in the country that have the capability to build FBM submarines. There's absolutely no way that FBM subs could be built secretly..."

The almarst reply ( almarst-2001 6/27/01 6:14pm ): "...Again, what I see is an attempt to INCREASE the OFFENCIVE military capacity of US, not to DECREASE it. Some are nuclear, some not. But OFFENCIVE always..."

Huh? Almarst seems to have distorted vision...

Alex celebrates the Boston Tea Party - nothing more.

Perhaps almarst thinks today is the anniversary of the tea party...

But it does bring up a point regarding GI - arrogance ... which is linked to bullying .... inexcusable, especially when 'Elvis has left the Stadium'.

No appology forthcoming this time, lunarchick. What I said was what I meant. Don't know what you mean by "bullying" but almarst's usually coherent comments are what seem to have left the stadium. No request for you to excuse me for anyting in this case.

If I found my replies to such un-provocative statements to be as disconnected as almarst's above, I'd think I needed to sober up too.

gisterme - 09:22pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6214 of 6216)

Later...

lunarchick - 02:59am Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6215 of 6216)
lunarchick@www.com

50 YEARS LATER ?

lunarchick - 03:49am Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6216 of 6216)
lunarchick@www.com

Problems - solve them
http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook3.htm http://www.mindtools.com/page2.html http://www.opta-food.com/problems/3prbs-prb.html http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/crashcourse.html http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/profession/probsolve.htm http://www.infinn.com/creative.html#Tutorial on Problem Solving http://www.infinn.com/creative.html http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/dds/58_restor_coherence.htm

Or just create a Wish List !

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense