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?

lunarchick - 09:51pm Aug 26, 2001 EST (#8170 of 8205)
lunarchick@www.com

... Mr. Bush. His staff and aides sleep in double-wide trailers parked outside the gate to his ranch and can be on hand at a moment's notice. He is bringing the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, to the ranch in November.

Wonder if Putin will get a 'proper bed' or opt for a Hostel in Town?

Is this Head of STATE, Head in a State, State of the Head ... or some sort of lunacy?

Why was Washington Built - Why have a Whitehouse?

Can these trappings of status now be bulldozed down ... the upkeep on a few acres of meadow grass (drainage, fertiliser, reaper-bailer) would be less than staffing the Whitehouse.

So America lurches from 'whitewater' to 'greenpasture' .. but when does Ken Starr make his million dollar entrance?

How will Putin later reciprocate ... a Trekking sumit in Mongolia .. borrow tents from the 'measured-worded' Reindeer people ... eat lichen with the deer .. check out the old haunts of Genghis Khan ... do some horse trading?

rshowalter - 03:12am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8171 of 8205)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A Treaty the World Has Outgrown by THAD COCHRAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/27/opinion/27COCH.html ...states a case that may be beautiful in terms of some assumptions, but ugly , because disproportionate, in terms of others.

It matters what the facts actually are -- technical and political. In the world as it is - and not forgetting things that have been done, that limit what can be done, and what should be done.

For missile defense to be constructive, the technology has to be workable, not a series of gross mistakes.

The following paragraphs of Senator Cochran express valid concerns, but also assumptions about facts and possibilities that are incomplete and dangerously wrong.

" Those who insist on clinging to the ABM treaty wish upon us a world in which our security depends only on the threat of nuclear annihilation of those who may threaten or blackmail us, a world where an American president could be forced to choose between backing down or killing untold numbers of people in another country as punishment for their leader's miscalculations.

" It is now up to President Putin to decide whether he will move forward with President Bush, or remain mired in a relationship that rests on threats of mutual annihilation of each country's civilian population."

Our security depends on a great deal besides nuclear weapons. There are many other kinds of deterrance, in existence, and constructable. We need to take approaches that work to reduce nuclear risks. We can move forward, but as we do so, we need to have accomodations made that fit technical and political facts.

MD3448 rshowalter 5/7/01 7:08pm ... MD3449 rshowalter 5/7/01 7:08pm
MD3445 rshowalter 5/7/01 7:03pm

MD3870 rshowalter 5/14/01 9:53pm
We can find answers that make the risks of the nuclear age far, far less than they have been, and far far less than they are now.

That depends on finding good answers, of disciplined beauty, in terms of facts that are real --- and in an essential sense, that means being able to "nail down" key issues about the facts of the past.

We have to find good, fair, workable ways to nail down those facts.

Getting some "islands of technical fact" established, that are completely beyond dispute, whatever one's politics or philosophical stance, would be a great start. And it can be done.

I don't think Senator Cochran, or any other responsible American, could advocate the President's policies in this matter if they were clear how worthless the technology was from a weapons point of view.

Facts need to be checked, in the national interest, and to get past

" An impasse that the world has outgrown."

abraxas_ch - 05:10am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8172 of 8205)

Don't worry. If the US economy continues to lower as it does now, USA will make a war in least than a year, as it seems it's only on the blood of others that THIS economy can survive. Maybe it would be time to get rid of the "FarWest" mentality and start to think.

rshowalter - 05:15am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8173 of 8205)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Things are polarizing. That is a risky, but hopeful kind of time. People might actually look at facts, and come up with better accomodations than now.

But during periods of paradigm conflict, whole groups can, in retrospect "go crazy."

It is time to be careful - and check facts.

Nuclear weapons are involved.

So is the prestige of the United States of America, and a country, and as a military power.

. . .

I'm out for today.

vyseguys0 - 06:05am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8174 of 8205)

Remember those that said Columbus would sail off the end of the Earth, jets would not fly, and we all remember that long ago Egytian General reporting to Pharoh that the Israelites were trapped at the Red sea. Now we have those that say a wobbling missle is a big problem, probably by those that predicted missles cant get off the ground. C'mon folks, technology moves along, dont get nervous, unless of course politics is the reason for all this nonsense.

(31 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense