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?

regeya - 08:45pm Jul 13, 2001 EST (#7012 of 7028)

What makes all of the difference is whether missile defense can be developed in conjunction with a decrease in nuclear weapons in the US as well as in Russia. If it cannot then it can only be counterproductive. The idea of eliminating 1000 of our warheads (out of roughly 7000) is a good start but if Russia is alienated as a result then she will reintroduce her MIRVs and we will be in more danger, not less.

rshowalter - 08:46pm Jul 13, 2001 EST (#7013 of 7028)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Now more than ever, we need clear accounting -- technically, strategically, financially. Things aren't adding up.
MD6300 rshowalter 6/29/01 4:28pm ... MD6301rshowalter 6/29/01 4:37pm
MD6307 rshowalter 6/29/01 6:11pm ... Md6309 rshowalter 6/29/01 6:22pm

( search Carlyle ... search Osprey )

rshowalter - 08:52pm Jul 13, 2001 EST (#7014 of 7028)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst , who has often represented Russian concerns very eloquently, has said, again and again, that even full nuclear disarmaments might be agreeable for Russia -- and Russia might actively assist in effective prohibition of nuclear weapons , which might be decisive.

But all the interdependent issues of military balances have to be considered.

It seems to me that we're getting close to conditions were a much more stable peace, and much better safety and comfort for the whole world, including the US, are becoming possible.

But the main changes needed to get to a more solid peace have to involve changes on the American side.

lunarchick - 01:42am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7015 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

" Mr. Bush is a strong, anti-protectionist advocate of free trade, but his first trade act as president was to do something that President Bill Clinton always resisted — erect a formal trade barrier to protect U.S. steel companies from foreign competition. This was done in part to neutralize opposition to the Bush global free-trade agenda, but since that agenda has not been fully spelled out or decisively pushed, the steel protection act stands out alone. " (Friedman above).

The essence of free trade/globalism is competitive advantage. Each doing what they do best at least cost in a subsidy free situation .. that never exists?!
Were America making quality steel using efficient process at optimum locations re delivery of inputs .... then the steel + specialist steel industry wouldn't need such a degree of protection - which equates with inefficiency and increased cost/price.

lunarchick - 08:54am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7016 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

RED-agent provocateur YELLOW-agent(4thDay) MD-Testing Agent !

lunarchick - 09:23am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7017 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

http://www.newscientist.com/img/covers/20010714.jpg
Missile Defense - Philip Coyne - mid-flight hit - driving a stake through the International treaty: ~ http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991021

lunarchick - 09:34am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7018 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

Parisian-Agent

lunarchick - 09:36am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7019 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

kate_nyt "Issue of the Week: The President's Agenda" 7/14/01 9:13am

lunarchick - 11:24am Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7020 of 7028)
lunarchick@www.com

Nite! (hit reload/refresh)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense