New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

almarst-2001 - 12:34am May 17, 2001 EST (#4024 of 4031)

On Imperial Powers.

When I compared the US to Imperial Powers I did not mean they are the same.

What is similar is the intervention and influence in affairs and lives of millions of people of other nations. Some times arrogant. Some times brutal. Some times subtle and covert. Some times military. Some times financial. Some times legal. Some times not so legal. At the same time, the US would never allow any other nation the same even to the slightest degree. This naturally creates at lest the perception of an attempt to dictate and dominate. Which in turn breeds the resentment and resistance. The US behavier is like it is a second to God, the only holder of the truth and the only judge having the right to issue the verdicts and punishments to all other nations.

Not only is it not fair and holds a large degree of a double standard, the question is "Why does it behave so, if not in a self-interest?" After all, this is a very costly policy which must be justified by US Government, even if not openly discussed and approved by a general public. And if in a self-interest, "Is it indifferent or against the other's nations interests?". Without getting too deep into discussion of what and how the nation's interest are defined, the following things are clear:

- The US has no right, nor the wisdom to judge and decide what is in other's nations interests.

- The US bears no consequences for the human sufferings and disasters resulted in it designs and actions abroad. Those people do not vote in US. And if thinks turnes ugly or costly, the US has always an option to retreat. That eliminates the need to be careful and leaves just a single criteria: "The cost-benefits analysis for the US "interests". Whatever they are and who is behind them.

From this perspective, there is no much of a difference from Colonial Powers stand.

To argue one have to demonstrate the consistantly benevolent and altruistic nature of US actions. As well as profound regret and effort to rectify for the costly to other nations mistakes. One should ask the simple question: "Whould the US behave the same way on its own soul, not to mention to let some other nation to act so in the US?"

almarst-2001 - 01:02am May 17, 2001 EST (#4025 of 4031)

On Military readiness.

While there may never be an absolute safety and always some way to improve the nation's defence, there must be a criteria to justify the size and the shape and posture of the nation's military.

This is usually based on a nation's geography and its relations with its neighbors on the shared borders or within reach of offensive wearpons.

As I mentioned before, the US military is in ever increasingly offensive posture. Its declared aim is a "projection of power" as far and as lethal it can get. What has it to do with the self-defence? There is practically no place on earth, the US can't bomb at any time and in no time. Or assamble a "rapid reaction force", more powerful then most of the nation's total mobilization force, within a weeks. How many nations can do the same to US? Who is threatening whom and why?

The perception is, with MD, the US wants to eliminate the only possible deterrance against its potential hostility, even using just a conventional but effective enough wearpons, still able to destroy the nation.

Can onyone declare the US would never, by its nature, able to commit evil or unjustified or just wrong action, even by mistake? The history does not support it. But even if it would, how can other nations take for granted it will always be so and build their fate and the future on such an assumptions? What would the US do in their's place? Why do you think the others will not do or at least try to do as US would in the same situation?

liberace3 - 04:28am May 17, 2001 EST (#4026 of 4031)

Tired of soundbites and biased or superficial coverage of major events? Hungry for real indepth and thought provoking resources on all global issues, with reports and inside-the-loop, high level discussions? Complex issues call for broad-based understanding. Explore this web site - The Center For Strategic and International Studies: http://www.csis.org/ Found out how Missile Defense and U.S. Foreign Policy is being received around the world.

rshowalter - 05:52am May 17, 2001 EST (#4027 of 4031)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/opinion/17SAFI.html

Wow! Do you suppose they'd look at me for a job or a grant? For reasons that are a little idiosyncratic, in some significant spots, I'm lacking credentials. . . .

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

almarst , your points are VERY well taken, and before I adress them explicitly, let me post some things, that I feel are related, that hook to today's news.

rshowalter - 05:54am May 17, 2001 EST (#4028 of 4031)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Mistakes can be made, including big ones, and to sort them out takes organized distrust, and staffing.

S.E.C. Accuses Former Sunbeam Official of Fraud by FLOYD NORRIS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/16/business/16SEC.html?pagewanted=all

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense