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 - 12:04pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8103 of 8106)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Citations of Thomas L. Friedman's columns and ideas on this thread. ...(92 cites)

rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 8:58am
rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 8:58am
rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 8:59am
rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 8:59am
rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 9:00am
rshowalter "Thomas L. Friedman" 8/24/01 9:00am

armel7 - 12:20pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8104 of 8106)
Science/Health Forums Host

News:Bush to abandon ABM

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

tothecove - 12:26pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8105 of 8106)

Impeach Bush for lunacy. As I read the headline this AM ("Bush flatly states US will pull out of ABM arms treaty") I for the first time reached a new level of astonishment and concern. Now we are dealing with a dangerous maniac, not a folksy vinegary moron. People should read the article in yesterday's Washington Post by Melvin Laird, the Defense secretary for Nixon who negotiated the ABM treaty ("Why Pull Out of the ABM?"). There is NO CAUSE whatsoever in anyone's interest to do anything but AMEND the ABM treaty. Laird went on to say the same re Kyoto and bio/chem weapons treaties. For the first time I'm thinking, Bush shouldn't be given 3 1/2 more years--impeachment should happen and probably could get a lot of support.

Bruce McLean

rshowalter - 12:26pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8106 of 8106)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

wrcooper 8/24/01 10:11am quoted me when I should have been clearer: I said:

" I believe that they are struggling, and struggling hard, to find justifications for their continued existence."

That was ill phrased.

I agree that the US needs a strong military, amply capable of defending United States interests.

But with current weapons, and weapons currently proposed? At current and proposed funding levels? That's debatable.

And a strong defense can't based on hardware that doesn't work -- or doesn't respond to threats that actually exist.

Missile defense is worthwhile only if it works. Stealth fighters are only worthwhile if they are actually hard for radars to see- and it is by no means clear that they are effectively hidden any more.

The idea that we need to spend $1500 for every man, woman and child in the United States, every year, to defend the US --- that's debatable. A strong military with respect to Korea, China, and the "cacophanous medley of anti-US alley cats in the Middle East and Africa" doesn't need so much money. Or money spent on things now being done.

Why not $500/american, rather than 1500? That's still a lot, for facing down the adversaries that are out there.

We agree that the military needs to use its money well. Not waste it.