Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (1540)	5/28/2001 3:03:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

Democrats are anxious about the estimated $60bn cost of the missile shield, the impact its development would have on relations with Russia and China and doubts about whether the technology will even work. I would opine that $60 Billion is not too much to spend to ensure that both China and Russia remain subordinate to "Pax Americana". They know that we're not going to attack them pre-emptively. That's not our style, and our form of government would prevent any popular support for such an action. However, the fact that we possess such a missile shield means that they would be forced to spend comparable sums of money (which are a far greater portion of THEIR GDP), which they couldn't sustain if they wished to compete economically with the US. That's, IMO, is what this is really all about. Forcing China and Russia to enter the community of democratic nations, or face economic ruin as a result of trying to match the US dollar for dollar, resulting in the downfall of totalitarian regime (china). Notice how the US has offered military assistance to Russia in exchange for dissolving the ABM treaty (which the Russians violated anyway). And more prominently, it will provide the US a measure of control over other states engaged in war, because we could theoretically neutralize their long-range ballistic missiles (armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads?), and make the US the final arbiter of who's Mutually Assured Destruction will suceed. Let's say Israel and Iraq go to way... We know Israel has Nukes, and Iraq might. So the US can step in and effectively decide who's missiles would get through and destroy the other. Now this is theoretical, but that might just be enough to bluff either, or both, sides into chilling out. And even if the system doesn't work 100%, fear of its unknown capabilities might swing important decisions towards the favor of the US. One example would be when China was threatening to blow up Los Angeles if we interfered in their blustering intimidation of Taiwan. Hawk

To: KLP who wrote (1540)	5/28/2001 3:58:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

U.S. May Buy Russian Missiles By Ron Fournier AP White House Correspondent Monday, May 28, 2001; 11:14 a.m. EDT WASHINGTON –– The Bush administration intends to offer Russia a broad range of arms purchases, military aid and joint anti-missile exercises in a bid to ease Moscow's objections to White House missile defense goals. The package is being prepared for Bush's meetings in June and July with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and similar incentives will be extended to other allies skeptical of the administration's push to dispense with the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, said a senior administration official. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the proposals are likely to include an offer to buy Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missiles that could be used to defend Russia and Europe. Many of the proposals have been sketched out to allies and mentioned publicly in broad terms by Bush and his aides, but the New York Times was the first to report Monday that S-300 missiles may be part of the package. "We want to convince the Russians that it is in their best interest to move beyond the ABM treaty and to develop a new relationship with us," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the newspaper. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov quickly dismissed the talk of a U.S. package in exchange for scrapping the ABM. "If such proposals come – we have not yet received them – I am sure that they will not solve the ABM issue," Ivanov told a news conference. Bush is traveling June 11-17 to Madrid, Spain; Brussels Belgium for a NATO summit; Gothenburg, Sweden for an US-European Union summit; Warsaw, Poland, to outline his hopes for Europe and NATO; and Slovenia, where he will be face-to-face with Putin for the first time. Advisers have cast the first meeting a get-acquainted session and predict that Bush won't delve deeply into his proposals for Russia until he meets Putin again in July as part of summit of industrialized nations. The senior administration official stressed that Bush is making similar overtures to other allies, hoping to douse fears that building a missile defense system would trigger a new arms race. Bush does not appear ready to share technologies with China, though officials said that could change over time. Some of the proposals build on ideas considered during the Bush presidency and pushed unsuccessfully by President Clinton. Those proposals, outlined by administration officials in conjunction with a Bush speech on the topic in April, include offers to hold joint exercises to identify and shoot down attacking warheads, to provide money for Russia's decaying radar system and share early warning date. Bush's sales job was complicated by the defection of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont from the Republican Party. Democrats taking over key chairmanships are wary of the Bush administration plans for the ABM treaty, and question the feasibility of building anti-missile systems. washingtonpost.com