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?

rshowalter - 03:17pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4394 of 4466)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The current situation needs secular redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345

The redemptive solution can't be an abstraction, or a fizzle - it has to be able to propagate - to get past chain breakers , as only a redemptive solution can. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/618

gisterme - 04:29pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4395 of 4466)

The Rationale for US Military Intervention After the Cold War - http://www.umassd.edu/specialprograms/mideastaffairs/rational.htm

almarst wrote: "...If that does not say it all, it nevertheless says a lot..."

That does say a lot almarst but most of the conclusions are pretty subjective. The one theme of the piece that I do agree with is it's portrayal of the Clinton administration's general ineptness in world affairs. The description of Clinton-style "globalization" and Clinton's apparent desire to maintain "dichotomy thinking" (integration vs. fragmentation) pretty much does say it all about that theme.

At least this author is honest about his motivation and racial loyalty. Why does that term "racial loyalty" come so hard to my fingertips? I think it's because of the tremendous progress in race relations that has taken place in the US over the last half-century. I'd think that usage comes hard because it has become unnatural for most Americans to think in those terms.

If the Arabs do manage to coagulate their "Caliphate", presumabley with Iraq and Afghanistan as its heart and soul, one can't help but wonder what the nature of that beast would be. One thing seems sure; either Saddam would have to go or the Taliban would have to change their tune. Either way, the prospects for leadership of such a union seem bleak. This particular analysis piece seems like just the sort of thing that would come from the diplomatic branch of Mr. ben Ladin's organization.

almarst, none of this stuff you've posted today, interesting as it is, justifies your claim that the US only intervenes militarily in a place when it sees big $$ at the end of the road.

almarst-2001 - 04:34pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4396 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 1:03pm

On China.

There are quite a number of indications and reasons why the US looks at China as a tread. Among them

- The growing China's economy and population will create a huge demand on World resources such as oil and gas.

- The South China Sea may contain a large amount of oil and/or gas, the China attempts to exploit and may use as a leverage to influence the whole SE. Asia, particularelly S.Korea and Japan while diminishing the US strategic importance and influence in the region.

- The likely desintegration of Indonesia may create a political vacume, the China is well suited to exploit.

- The huge Chinese market potential creates a very strong incentive for Europe to conduct an independent from US policy toward China and future pull it from US-NATO.

The China is therefore a big tread to American hegemonism, particularelly in Asia as well as a big competitor for the natural resources.

If you think that's not enough, ask Ramsfeld-Bush team: "Why they declared the new US military strategy as primerelly concerned with SE Asia?"

gisterme - 04:35pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4397 of 4466)

rshowalter wrote: "...And the key phrase is mutually dependent.

Robert, "mutual dependency" seems far better to me than "mutual destruction".

gisterme - 04:40pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4398 of 4466)

We can do without casting stones.

My point exacly, Robert.

almarst-2001 - 04:42pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4399 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 1:27pm

On US hypocricy.

So, the Arabic Kingdoms are just too peacefull to drow the US attention for their human rights violations and dictatorships? Well, how about Turkey slouhgtering thousends of Kurds under the US-British watcheful eyes? What about Israel? What about genocide in Rwanda, the US did not want to get involved? What about Indonesia, the US gave just a small lip-service to events in E. Timor?

Actually, if you follow the list of US-lead conflicts, you can see that it was a source of by far the most of the death since WWII.

If that's not a hypocricy, what is?

almarst-2001 - 04:48pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4400 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 1:34pm

On Powell.

No substance - for you. Not for me. When I see a smoke I expect eventually to see a fire. And I see a lot of a very dangerows smoke coming out of all this what you call "posterinng" and "no substance". If you recall, that what many said about Hitler when he declared the Jeish conspiracy aganst German nation.

We have already traveled by this road once.

almarst-2001 - 04:53pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4401 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 2:14pm

On Echelon.

If you know someone maintains a world-wide spying operation while pretending it does not exists, you may believe it has a potential to harm you or may not.

Its a matter of trust and demonstrated good will.

Make your judgement. I will make mine.

almarst-2001 - 05:01pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4402 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 3:02pm

"Just more ugliness from a past era."

That was a hope after the End of Cold War ... before the Iraq and Yugoslavia.

The Iraq and particularelly the Yugoslavia changed the rosy scenarion completely.

It seems for US the past is jast a prolog to the future, only more so.

(64 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense