![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (8371 previous messages)
lunarchick
- 04:15am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8372
of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com
"Their headlong, headstrong, irrational and theological desire to
build a missile defence sends the wrong message to the Chinese and
the whole world." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=91987
US diplomats are trying to convince the Chinese that they are not
threatened by the proposed missile shield. They are also willing to
accept that China may also want to resume underground nuclear
testing – currently banned by a worldwide moratorium.
lunarchick
- 04:24am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8373
of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com
Something
to smile about?
lunarchick
- 04:28am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8374
of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com
POSTOL http://www.google.com/search?q=Postol&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.findarticles.com/m1111/1803_301/63842593/p1/article.jhtml
lunarchick
- 04:37am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8375
of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com
So
who's counting? why Bwsh of course see
lunarchick
- 04:41am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8376
of 8382)
lunarchick@www.com
LOOS
'.....the US's $206 billion defence budget is
earmarked for the new loos'*
The multimillion-dollar procurement programme
echoes the excesses of the Ronald Reagan era, notably a $600
airborne toilet seat the generals of that era ordered. Supporters
argued that it was not just a seat but an entire system, able to
withstand G forces and sudden decompression that had been
intensively tested under diarrhoea and combat conditions.
In published papers heavy with codewords for new
potty contraptions to ensure the safe completion of the most basic
of human functions, the Pentagon is now looking at a number of
different models. The most sophisticated is the air transportable
Collectively Protected Expeditionary Latrine, or CPEL.
check
rshowalter
- 08:29am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8377
of 8382) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Sorry if I post too much. I've been very afraid of the end of the
world, for a long time - for reasons, some set out on this thread,
that I've found compelling. And tried to communicate, not only on
this thread, but through formal channels, as well.
I've been trying to get some things checked -- and establish the
notion that, when it matters enough -- there are some kinds of
checking that need to be morally forcing. That's the opposite
of the standard now, where checking, if it displeases people in
power, can always be subordinated to other values, and always is. I
think The New York Times may be the best organization in the
world to discuss that point about checking with, especially with
respect to the circumstances discussed in this thread.
rshowalter
- 08:30am Sep 3, 2001 EST (#8378
of 8382)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I continue to be uneasy.
When the US decides it is "comfortable" with a large expansion of
nuclear missiles for China, they ought to consider what China has
done, this century. There have been mistakes -- and mass deaths far
worse than usual "mistakes" -- in the tens of millions. Even setting
aside concerns about the hateful and cruel behavior Chinese have
sometimes shown, mistakes, where nukes are involved, can be the
death of us all.
Where missiles, or human controls are involved, mistakes are
easy, and many mistakes happen. Reducing the world to a scorched
ball, full of rotting
unburied corpses. Death, for most, would take days or weeks.
Nukes, today, could go off like a string of firecrackers, and the
end of the world could happen.
For me, it is a lot easier to imagine this, than to imagine some
of the things that have already happened in the world, since
January.
MD6753 lunarchick
7/7/01 10:16pm ... MD6754 lunarchick
7/8/01 12:00am
I think that, when we consider the world, and how we'd like to
change it, it is good to consider the ideas, memories, and news
stories associated with this famous picture, of THE POWER OF
ONE http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg
We need to be careful. And only so "trusting," where nukes are
concerned, of either ourselves, or others.
  (4
following messages)
  
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
