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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1440)	12/12/2001 2:48:58 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

The view from Los Angeles: 'Trading 'good' for 'iffy'' Posted on Wednesday, December 12 @ 10:05:41 EST A Los Angeles Times Editorial So much for multilateralism. The Bush administration took office ignoring or promising to scrap treaties, not holding much regard for the United Nations and looking to go it alone in foreign policy. After Sept. 11 there was hope that had changed. But now come reports that Washington will abandon the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of relations with the Soviet Union and later with Russia. Washington is expected to announce its intention soon, within weeks or perhaps even days. The administration said the United States would be better off with a national missile defense system to protect against nuclear attack. What's really best for the U.S. is for Washington to work with Russia to interpret or amend the ABM treaty so that some testing and construction of missile defenses could occur A national missile defense system would be enormously expensive, and there are no indications it's feasible. The ABM treaty shouldn't be junked for a "maybe" defense. The timing of the reports are unfortunate, coming one day after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in Russia that both sides were "very close" to an agreement on exactly how many offensive nuclear weapons each would destroy. That represents progress in removing an existing threat. Bush said in his speech at the Citadel Tuesday that the U.S. needs "limited and effective defenses against a missile attack." He again called the ABM treaty a relic of "a different era." European leaders, not to mention the Chinese and the Russians, dispute that. Powell flew from Russia to Germany, where Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that while arms control agreements might be modified, they should not be tossed into the trash. Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov described the ABM agreement as key to ensuring stability in the world--although he indicated that Russia might not take reprisals if Washington abrogated the pact. The ABM treaty is not a relic but a strategic foundation; that's why it has lasted so long. Washington needs Russian cooperation on other matters, including assistance to Iran's nuclear power program and security at Russian nuclear sites, so old Soviet weapons don't someday wind up in the United States on a ship or plane in the custody of terrorists. The United States has warned Russia of its concerns about Iran and rightly is helping with funds to improve security of nuclear weapons. For each dollar spent, Washington--and the world--will get more safety from securing existing weapons than from a technically very iffy missile defense that requires the U.S. to scrap a long-standing and useful treaty. Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times: latimes.com opinion/editorials/la-000098610dec12.story? coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Deditorials