The Sum of all Fears

[Squishy]

"Also, because of taking out the original intent of the film (i.e. Clancy's novel involved Middle Eastern terrorists, but was changed due to the 9/11 incident) just goes to show that America needs that "political correctness" to make our movies better (ha!). Sadly, it just ruins what would have been a powerful film and thought provoking as well."

Actually, it only shows that Cardboard-Cutout Generic Bad Guys are interchangable; the identities of the villians seem considerably less important than in your average James Bond movie.

[Creepozoid]

Dano wrote:
>
> The Prez can attend the Super Bowl... but he never does
> because of the security nightmare that it would entail.  The
> NFL probably asks that he doesn't come because it would be a
> distraction and disrupt the stands with press and secret
> service
>
>

I'd only worry if it was in Oakland, those damn raider fans scare me

[Dano]

Creepazoid wrote:  I'd only worry if it was in Oakland, those damn raider fans scare me

: )

Oakland is bad, but Philly has the only football stadium in the NFL with a courtroom on the premises for the quick arraignment of rowdy fans who get arrested.

[Scott]

I think Russia is a legitamate threat. They still are producing missles in underground facilities in the Urals. They aren't manufacturing missles for the fun of it. The movie could have used more of the Arab parts, but the involvement of Russia was not outdated in the film.

[Fearless Freep]

Philly has the only football stadium in the NFL with a courtroom on the premises for the quick arraignment of rowdy fans who get arrested

That's cause the Philidelphia fans are as likely to assult their own players

[Creepozoid]

Fearless Freep wrote:
>
> Philly has the only football stadium in the NFL with a
> courtroom on the premises for the quick arraignment of rowdy
> fans who get arrested
>
> That's cause the Philidelphia fans are as likely to assult
> their own players

You should see Oakland fans. GO 49ERS!

[Dano]

Scott -Russia needs to update their missile force to field a credible deterrant to what they perceive as threats.  These include (seriously) invasion by Germany or China (no not in the next five years, but down the road as they perceive things) or a first strike by the US to disarm them.  You don't just build a missile and it lasts forever - you need to replace them periodically.  Also, much of the work that goes into ICBMs is geared toward making them safer (interesting concept, I know), which is to say less likely to malfunction, leak radiation, get their commands overridden by someone who shouldn't have control of them, etc.  They also try to make them more survivable so they are harder to knock out in a first strike and this is a GOOD thing.  You see if the Russians ever feel that the US could knock out their deterrant in a first strike, they would go to a "launch on warning" status instead of the current policy to launch AFTER the first strike is over.  The current policy to ride out the attack and then retaliate ensures that they won't launch unless we actually hit them.  If they go to launch on warning, then a radar glitch could force them to launch.  Don't laugh.  In the 1950s, the US almost "retaliated" when NORAD radars caught the moon coming up over Norway and it looked like a Russian first strike.  Anyway - so long as the Russians feel their deterrant is safe from a first strike, they aren't a threat.  It has rightly been US policy to ensure that the Russians actually CAN ride out a first strike so they don't go to launch on warning.  Bush's missile defense fetish threatens that concept, but not seriously.

Anyway - Russia and the US share far too many interests to be real adversaries.

[Fearless Freep]

The reason M.A.D actually worked was that those in charge were , for the most, part,actually rational,intelligent people.

[Scott]

Sounds good Dano. I've just read reports that they are producing alot of stuff in those Ural Mountains. Alot of activity in that region with many railroads that go into the mountain. As far as the rest of their forces they don't seem to be a threat. Just the missle stuff. I liked your info though Dano. Of coarse not being there makes us really on other peoples observations.

[Dano]

Of coarse not being there makes us really on other peoples observations.
*****  Fortunately with the treaties we have, we can send our own people to go take a look at many of those places any time we want... and vice versa of course.  Inspection regimes work when the host country allows access, which they do.  That's a main reason why I'm comfortable trusting them for now.

[Scott]

Dano what do you think about the sale of missles to other countries, the use of scientist, related technology, or material from Russia to lets say Middle East or anywhere?  Official deal or smuggling. I think also the US has a "take a first strike before counter attack" approach through Clinton policy. Do we really have free inspection of there areas?

What do you think about the idea that Russia wants to be a major player in the world again and Putin trying to make it happen one way or another?

Your thoughts are good Dano.

[Dano]

The Russians feel that they should be a major player in world events, and frankly, to be fair, their geography supports this.  The have vested interests in Europe, the Middle East/Islamic World, and the Far East.  Culturally, they have a national pride issue as well - they were the big kids on the block for half a century, they were key in defeating the Nazis, they led the way or snapped at our heels through the space race.  We can't expect them to roll over and be a larger version of Sweden all of the sudden.  They're not insulated enough from the rest of the world not to be a major power - their national survival depends on it.  So I don't think we can or should begrudge them.  The question is, are they going to be enemies, allies, or a little of both?

I think Bush I/Clinton failed in making them allies.  Expanding NATO didn't help matters, and we could have been more helpful in their rebuilding their economy.  We were concerned first and foremost with their nukes (a good idea) but everything else was a too-distant second.  But alot of it also has to do with lingering Cold War antipathy, so you can't blame our leadership too much on that.  And for the record, Clinton never went to a launch under warning status.  Our submarine missile force prevents us from having to do that because even if they bulls-eyed all our land based missiles and bombers, our subs can destroy them and they can't get them in a first strike because they don't have the Navy to hunt them down anymore.  Besides, their force has shrunk so much that they couldn't even get all our land-based forces in a first strike.

I don't claim to know all the details of our inspection regimes, but I know that we visit their nuke and missile production places (and vice versa), as well as conventional garrisons under the Conventional Forces Europe treaty.  

As for what they sell and to whom, that's tricky.  There's only so much we can do - especially with the Cold War history.  I remember Clinton being baffled that the Russians were not supporting his hard line in Iraq while at the same time pushing to let Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic into NATO (which the Russians did NOT want).  But Clinton just couldn't see the connection.  We can't stop their arms shipments by force, and to persuade them, we need to give a little.  It isn't too late to give them some more constructive help in establishing a stronger economy, and if we do that, we'll be in a better position to influence their arms sales I think.  Bush was moving on that, and in the right direction - pushing to help them exploit their vast natural resources which would enrich their country.  Unfortunately the newspapers and TV news sort of slumped off in their coverage because Winona Rider got arrested and American Idol went to the quarterfinals, so they obviously had "more important" stuff to cover than boring old world events.

I think that with good leadership on both sides, and fading of Cold War memories, Russia should be a major US ally in the future.  I don't believe if Baltimore got nuked tomorrow that the Russians would even be in the top ten suspects list either.  Anyway, sorry for the thesis paper, but you did ask.  
: )

[Bob]

 I don't know if anyone has pointed it out yet, but the in the Tom Clancy book from which the movie was made the people who set off the nuclear bomb were Arab terrorists.

[Chadzilla]

Bob wrote:
>
>  I don't know if anyone has pointed it out yet, but the in
> the Tom Clancy book from which the movie was made the people
> who set off the nuclear bomb were Arab terrorists.

Yeah, some (or maybe most, can't be certain) knew of the change.  Whether it was a good change or not could be debated.  For those who have read Sum and would like to know the fate of the terrorists left standing at novel's end...read Debt of Honor, the next book in the series.