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 - 03:56am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8218 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone By BRUCE ACKERMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/29/opinion/29ACKE.html ... raises key questions. Among them:

"If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty (without consulting Congress) what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?"

What is to stop this president from doing such things, or other serious things?

A related question is this. How far are NATO and the United States going to be able to trust the word of the United States?

Especially if checks and balances can be vitiated entirely by elections hinging on 535 much disputed votes, among hundreds of thousands or millions of questionable ones.

rshowalter - 04:06am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8219 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The connections to the world's historical experience with the Nazis is a disquieting one -- and if the search capability of this thread was restored, one might see how disquieting that connection is in connection to some of the doings of the Bush administration. One could do so by searching "Nazi;" "big lie;" and "Bush and Nazi" among others search topics.

During the Cold War, the association of the right wing of the Republican party with ex-Nazis, and the association of the Bush family with Nazis, was sometimes disquietingly close. The association of Nazis and ex-nazis with the CIA was close.

Some of the tactics of this administration bear a certain grim family resemblance to some tactics that the Hitler used with remarkable effectiveness as he subverted the democratic institutions of Germany. Hitler then went crazy, and made a series of decisions that did wrenching damage to the whole world.

Are the decisions of this administration always sane? If they were not, where are the checks and balances that could stop them?

There are nuclear weapons involved here, and the world could end if some key mistakes were made.

rshowalter - 04:12am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8220 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Citations of Maureen Dowd's columns and ideas on this thread:
rshowalter "Maureen Dowd" 8/24/01 9:04am

Citations of Thomas L. Friedman's columns and ideas on this thread. ...(92 cites)
rshowalter 8/24/01 12:04pm

rshowalter - 04:16am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8221 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD8101 rshowalter 8/24/01 12:02pm

Showstoppers, when they happen, are usually simple.

In missile defense, there are many.

But they have to be explained.

lwjordan0 - 04:16am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8222 of 8231)

Two of the three rogue nations who might attack with crude weapons mentioned in the story are Iraq and Iran. Israel is being bombed by Palestinians and their allies without even an airplane! Why would Iraq and/or Iran bother with a missle when a "?" could carry an A-bomb into NY harbor or Seattle etc. and set it off by pushing a button on his wrist? Most large population centers are adjacent to water. Why are we looking for missles we can't hit when the Middle East shows us a low tech answer.

rshowalter - 05:52am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8223 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The motivation this administration is showing is plainly intense -- they want missile defense expenditure for reasons that they find compelling.

But the technical case, and the strategic case, make little or no sense -- they are such bad cases that the credibility of the United States, with allies and other countries, all over the world, is deteriorating at a rate that is historically unprecedented.

The United State is being besmirched.

A problem is that "the system" co-opts so effectively that dissent, within the United States, can be remarkably muted. I'm looking at a very interesting example of that co-option now, involving famous, distinguished people, huge resources, wonderful public intentions, and very supportive coverage from THE NEW YORK TIMES and other news outlets.

Sometimes, it is necessary to look a little below the surface, and to have some memory, and some tolerance of complexity. The internet makes these things easier, but does not do away with the need for human responsibility and courage.

MD7562 rshowalter 7/29/01 4:48am makes some key if uncomfortable points.

rshowalter - 05:54am Aug 29, 2001 EST (#8224 of 8231)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Chain breakers: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense