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 - 05:10pm Mar 11, 2001 EST (#928 of 931)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

To repeat a question:

How much would a substantial change in military policy change the current market value of Carlyles equity (currently about 3.5 billion.) ? Relatively minor changes might cut it by 2/3 or more. The NYT argues, by somewhat indirect means, that James Bakers share of that equity is likely to be of the order of 180 million dollars. The share of the current presidents father is likely to be substantial, as well. ELDER BUSH IN BIG G.O.P. CAST TOILING FOR TOP EQUITY FIRM

These influential people have very direct, and very specific monetary interests in military policy. They may have other interests and liabilities at stake, as well.

____

Accountants routinely ask, if money could have been stolen or misused, whether it was. They do so especially when there are many "coincidences" -- when things seem somehow strange.

Those questions make sense to ask here. And not only of Carlyle.

Hillary Clinton once spoke in public, passionately if unguardedly, of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Could one exist? It would appear so. The possibility would explain a lot.

Such a conspiracy might have been a brilliant, reponsible, and necessary strategim for winning the Cold War without a nuclear interchange. But suppose that strategy was carried out, and succeeded? Could people have had trouble turning it off? Or could people have come to have stakes in keeping the conspiracy going?

almarst-2001 - 05:13pm Mar 11, 2001 EST (#929 of 931)

rshowalter 3/11/01 4:45pm

"And so they assume the worst.

They ought to imagine another explanation. A combination of a snafu, a "good" policy that involved so many lies that no one knew how to turn it off, and a fraud.

From the point of view of Russia, China, and many other countries -- how comforting that thought should be !"

The stakes and the post WWII experience of US international behavier does not allow for such a "margin of error". In their situation, no responsible nation would.

You should ask yourself what would be a reaction in the US if it would find itself in a position of say, China vis-a-vi US today?

One of the biggest problems I see in attitudes in US is its inability or unvillingness to place themselve into someone elses's shoes so to speak.

There is a litle recognition of the difference of historic experience of US versus most of other nations. The differences which greatly influenced what can be called the nation's mentality, values, behavier and attitudes.

rshowalter - 05:16pm Mar 11, 2001 EST (#930 of 931)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd argue that such a conspiracy was a brilliant, if very risky strategim for winning the Cold War without a nuclear interchange. I'd argue that the strategy was carried out, and succeeded.

I don't have to appeal to any classified sources to say so. It is a very reasonable inference from the facts related in a celebrated book -- DARK SUN: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb , by Richard Rhodes.

rshowalter - 05:21pm Mar 11, 2001 EST (#931 of 931)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 I understand your point very well, and you're right.

Americans would do well to think about the Golden Rule, and how their actions look to other countries.

If the average American understood that Russians, Chinese, and others really are afraid of first strikes, then we could get rid of nuclear weapons, worldwide, and effectively outlaw them.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense