[FPSPACE] Missile defense explained

Fetter, Les S Les.Fetter@SW.Boeing.com
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:23:34 -0600


The NMD is not forbidden only because the US unilaterally abrogated the
Treaty.  Not quite the same thing.  Now who's being legalistic and evasive?

What would make me happy is for the US to be a better and safer place.  NMD
is the wrong way to accomplish that.

Les Fetter 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	james oberg [SMTP:joberg@houston.rr.com]
> Sent:	Friday, January 04, 2002 10:57 AM
> To:	fpspace@friends-partners.org
> Subject:	Re: [FPSPACE] Missile defense explained
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fetter, Les S <Les.Fetter@sw.boeing.com>
> To: <fpspace@friends-partners.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:28 AM
> > The difference is that system is allowed by international treaty.  It
> was
> > agreed to as a mutual, stabilizing protection.  We discussed this
> before.
> > The U.S. chose to protect farmland in North Dakota, and then dismantled
> it
> > unilaterally.
> 
> Now you're being legalistic and evasive. The system is real, and you say
> it
> doesn't bother you because it's not forbidden by an international treaty?
> 
> Well, any NMD system the US chose to build, will not be forbidden by any
> international treaty either.
> 
> Somehow I don't think this will make you happy.
> 
> Russian ABM systems good, US ABM systems bad.
> 
> Four legs good, two legs bad, right?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FPSPACE mailing list
> FPSPACE@friends-partners.org
> http://fpmail.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/fpspace