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 - 01:23pm Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6979 of 6982)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Rumsfeld, meantime, planned to address a Capitol Hill conference Thursday on missile defense, focusing on what he and others argue are new missile threats from smaller states antagonistic to the United States.

" "The world has changed fundamentally and the rationale for Cold War arrangements no longer exists," says the memorandum sent to U.S. embassies and consulates July 3.

"It is intended to provide American diplomats with talking points to help persuade other governments to support President Bush's aspirations for a missile shield.

"Answers to prospective questions are provided. Among "misconceptions" the American diplomats are cautioned to anticipate is that "states like North Korea and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing they would pay a terrible price in response."

Comment: Almast , and he seems to speak for Russia here, does not believe that the "rogue states" are anything but a pretext for missile defense -- and one can see his point of view -- Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has also expressed grave doubts on this, doubts that others share: Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html This and related issues of deterrance are extensively discussed on this thread -- a search of "deter*" gets five search pages -- and selected links to that discussion follow. There has not been a shred of convincing argument - and little argument at all, in support of the idea that there are "undeterrable rogues" out there to motivate the administration's missile defense proposals.

"Deployment of an interim ground-based system in Alaska could be completed as early as 2004, the memorandum said.

"Bush has called the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia a relic of the Cold War. It bans deployment in any state except North Dakota of a U.S. shield against long-range missiles.

"Russian President Putin opposes setting aside the treaty and has warned it could touch off a new nuclear arms race. He has suggested negotiations to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals.

"Many U.S. allies are skeptical or noncommittal of the Bush administration's aspirations.

"On Wednesday, Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, agreed with Bush's assessment of a growing nuclear danger in the world. But he signaled on a visit to Washington that his government intends to withhold a judgment on an anti-missile system while the administration weighs its options on the program's possible variations.

"Putin proposed on July 6 that the five long-established nuclear power states -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- start negotiations aimed at eliminating 10,000 warheads in the next seven years.

"Putin is expected to bring up the proposal with Bush this month at an economic summit meeting in Genoa, Italy.

"The Russian leader is not likely to get very far. A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Putin's proposal is not going to win over the administration."

rshowalter - 01:25pm Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6980 of 6982)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The "misconception" that "states like North Korea and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing they would pay a terrible price in response." ....... has been extensively discussed on this thread, and has included many able people - including a representative of the administration, gisterme , who has worked hard. If you search "deter*" -- this thread, there are 5 search pages, including many more links than these.

MD51-59 longiiland 6/9/00 9:59am ... MD259-263 beckq 9/6/00 2:03pm
MD462_463 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@184.BqGlaSMlrrX^4587117@.f0ce57b/511... MD503 robertbriscoe 11/17/00 10:05pm
MD501 rshowalter 11/16/00 8:03pm ... MD785-790 mister_shadow 2/26/01 3:54am
MD912 almarst-2001 3/10/01 9:12pm ... MD724 almarst-2001 3/11/01 3:58pm
MD750 almarstel2001 3/12/01 11:36am .... MD1658-1661 sumofallfears 3/29/01 9:39am
MD2825_27 cookiess0 4/30/01 1:44pm ... MD3171 wrcooper 5/3/01 4:33pm
MD3370 rshowalter 5/6/01 3:38pm ... MD3510-11 rshowalter 5/8/01 12:09pm

Who's Crazy Here? by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/opinion/15FRIE.html

MD4009 rshowalter 5/16/01 8:32pm ... MD4043-45 rshowalter 5/17/01 12:57pm
MD4453 jimmcd53 6/1/01 5:52pm ... MD5751 rshowalter 6/22/01 9:23am
MD5992-94 maran5901 6/25/01 12:18pm ....

There has been little argument at all in support of the idea that there are "undeterrable rogues" out there to motivate the administration's missile defense proposals. Of that small amount of fragmentary argument for "undeterrable rogues" - none has made any sense to me. Except as a pretext for supporting a program motivated for other reasons -- reasons other than any valid defense of the US - since the proposals are so technically (and diplomatically) flawed.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense