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?

gisterme - 03:56pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4056 of 4059)

almarst wrote (#4024): "...On Imperial Powers...

Great post, almarst.

What is similar (to past empires) is the intervention and influence in affairs and lives of millions of people of other nations.

The US DOES have an empire, but not at all in the traditional sense. The US' empire is an economic one, based on a free world market. Not unlike Bill Gates' empire. In our new "small world", nations are more like interdependent individuals living in a village than isolated hermits. What any one does can't help but effect some or all of the others. Isolationism is just not an option because it is no longer possible.

At the same time, the US would never allow any other nation the same even to the slightest degree...."

It is always in the interest of a free market for everybody to play by the rules of the economy, from the richest to the poorest.

If you look honestly at most US military interventions (Kosovo is the exception) the fundamental underlying theme somehow relates to long-term trade conditions or market impact. That began with the American Revolution. In "world village economy" terms, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was the equivalent of the robbery and attempted murder of one villager by another. Nobody allows that in villages of individuals. Why should it be allowed in a village of nations?

So in the "economic domain" the US MUST allow all the other nations to participate freely in the world economy, even though there may be competition or increased costs to its own consumers. Anything else is detremental to its own economic interest.

OPEC is the perfect example of "villagers" playing by the economic rules to advance their own intrests. They have resources to SELL in the village market. They can ask any price they want. If they want to improve their houses, it's just tough luck that other villagers will need to finance that by paying more for gas. They need the gas. That exploitation of "supply and demand" opportunities is behavior that is eniterly within the rules of a free economy. That's why you'll never see the US breaking those rules by militarily invading some place to deny it free market rights or to steal its resources. To do so would be a denial by the US of its own rights to the same free market. The US has frequently used its military to protect free trade.

This naturally creates at lest the perception of an attempt to dictate and dominate. Which in turn breeds the resentment and resistance.

Of course it does. Folks paying much higher energy prices around the world tend to perceive OPEC as an organization that is trying to dicatate and dominate too. "Those mean old OPEC people have all that nice oil and they don't want to GIVE it to me! Just imagine! They want me to PAY what it's worh to THEM." Helllloooo? Welcome to the world economy.

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.

Sometimes while standing at the gas pump and recalling $0.19/gallon gasoline, OPEC seems god-like to me as well. That doesn't make it so. It's just a perception that occurs to me because they have what I want and I'm powerless to do anything but pay for it if I want some too.

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?"...

I'm not sure just what "double standard" you mean, almarst, but all nations act in their own self interest, just like individuals do. The villager who is not able to be productive to the economy and simultaneously look out for his own intersts usually winds up being the village bum.

...Without getting too deep

gisterme - 03:58pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4057 of 4059)

gisterme (#4056) continued:

almarst wrote (#4024): "...On Imperial Powers...

...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.

Right, almarst. It can only decide and act on what's in its own intersts, just like an individual in a village. The richest guy in town will always be envied, even though his wealth is fairly earned. This is also a type of assymetry but only if veiwed as an instantaneous condition. In a true free market everybody has a chance and a RIGHT to exploit their own resources, both physical and human toward the accomplishment of their own interests. In the best of situations everybody can learn to work together to create the kind of synergy that can serve both individual intersts and the overall intersts of the village. The rich guy CAN help with that, not because he MUST by market rules, but because it serves the interests of all for the economy to be healthy. Starvation is rare in a healthy economy. In this REAL world community, no nation in history has spent so much of its own treasure to build the economies of others so that they can particpate in the world economy, even though it spawns market competitors by so doing. That's because it knows that competition is not only healthy but essential in a free market economy. The reason why I say that the rich/poor condition is assymetric only in the instantaneous sense is because the poor guy has a chance to participate in the same market that made the rich guy rich. He can change his own condition based on his own resources, abilities and hard work.

- The US bears no consequences for the human sufferings and disasters resulted in it designs and actions abroad.

It may seem so to you, almarst; but if the US does something that restricts the free market it harms its ability to pursue its own intersts.

Those people do not vote in US. And if thinks turnes ugly or costly, the US has always an option to retreat.

Retreat to where, almarst? The world economic villiage is one that nobody can leave.

That eliminates the need to be careful and leaves just a single criteria: "The cost-benefits analysis for the US "interests"...

I'd disagree with the first statement entirely, almarst. That makes it all the more important for the US to be careful. As for cost-benefits analysis, isn't that what each of us do before we make a decision to do something? Most days when I get up in the morning I consider options, count the cost of each WRT my own intersts and make a decision..."Should I go to work today or just go the beach instead..." I seldom choose the beach even though that's what I would much rather do.

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

Seems like a huge difference to me. A "colony" is like a servant to its master, forced to give up a portion of its wealth and labor to the Emperor. Not unlike an individual taxpayer within a nation; not at all like a free agent in a free market.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense