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?

almarstel2001 - 10:15pm Mar 7, 2001 EST (#865 of 871)

Why do I believe it is very dangerows for the World to end up with absolute monopoly of military power in face of US?

The US administrations had shown times after times their disrespect to international law, disregard to the truth, brutality and villingness to commit aggressions against other countries in a name of so called "national interests". Those interests never came under any serious scruteny by so called "free press" for the reasons beiong my understanding except some hidden financial pressures from the "military-industrial complex", including such companies as GE and a fear to be seen as "unpatriotic" once US troops are commited by a President. Same seems to hold true for US Cogress and Senate.

The recent disinformation, propaganda, lies, support for terrorists and mafia organisations such as KLA and criminal coward bombing compain over Kosovo demonstrated this pattern clearer then ever before.

Why whould any country on Earth feel safe in this situation? And if country feels tratened, it may indeed commit suicidal acts of violence.

Just look at the recent shooting in the school by a weak angry guy, constantly boolied by some others. Isn't it clear and understandable?

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE DESPERATION!

almarstel2001 - 10:33pm Mar 7, 2001 EST (#866 of 871)

The sence of involunarbility which may tempt a shameless US president such as Clinton to commit a criminal acts of aggression abroad to divert attention from his sexual affears at home may bring some day a true catastrophy to this nation, not to mention the shame and isolation.

rshowalter - 05:51am Mar 8, 2001 EST (#867 of 871)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarstel2001 -

I think you are profoundly right in spots. In other spots, I think youre wrong.

In The Lexus and the Olive Tree Thomas Friedman was careful to point out that a global economy did require global order.

If other things were right (and now they or not) a predominance of military power (given the ease with which people can kill, a monopoly will NEVER be possible) might be a very GOOD thing for the US, and for the world as well.

The US is, as a matter of fact, in a dominant military position. All concerned have to deal with that fact. Whether this fact is ought to be or not, is a current fact. A fact that could be to the advantage of the US, and the majority of the world that shares many (by no means all) of our aspirations.

So long as the LIMITS of military power were acknowledged -- and they are much more severe than they were just a few decades ago. These limits need to be clearer- to the US and others.

And so long as the US knew how vulnerable it was in other ways -- ways that are now irreversable.

Ways that should keep us careful, and polite.

The United States, when it can get allies, is very well suited for reprises of World War II.

We are well adapted to invade empty spaces (like Iraq) with military forces moving on them - without regard to complexities of the whole sociotechnical systems on that land. Our military forces are unmatched for that, and Id see no good coming from other nations getting a similar capabilty.

But the times when this sort of military action justified or feasable -- the times when threat of such action is credible -- the times when our own military would be willing to do any such thing --- are limited.

Everybody knows it, at some level, and they ought not to forget it.

We need to live in a way that other people can live too -- and live in a way that isolates, and weakens, crazy groups like Taliban. The US has tried to do that, and the policy hasnt worked well in important areas. And example is dealt with on the OpEd pages today -- TAKING SIDES IN AFGANISTAN by R.M. Gerecht

Perhaps, if the US had been more honest - and if others in the world had been more favorably disposed to the United States, our policies might have worked better, here and elsewhere.

Perhaps such policies might be made to work better in the future. Policies of accomodation and mutual respect require honesty -- something the US needs to show. Actions that show a lack integrity are expensive to us, when we are asking for cooperation in good faith from others.

In all events, the US, for all its "monopoly of military power" seems to have few workable options, or convincing alternatives - in Afganistan, and sometimes elsewhere in the world.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense