New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(1084 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 03:16pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1085
of 1088) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
We also can't imagine (I don't pretend that this is logical, but
at the level of our emotions it is real) that you feel we are
threatening you with first strikes with nuclear weapons. This
essential fact about Russia is not understood by most Americans,
and is not even understood by most Americans in our military
forces. I believe that, for peace, we Americans need to
understand that for basic, unchangeable reasons, Russia does
fear first strike threats from us.
If Americans, as people, understood these things (and I grant
you in a more perfect world, these would be easy things to show) the
other barriers to nuclear safety and a balanced peace would be
relatively easy and certain to be surmounted.
These things, in my view, are the most BASIC things that
Americans need to understand, in order for us to step back from
nuclear peril, and from unnecessary wars.
Now, let me talk about your 1083, and only then of hope, of a
legacy. I'll be discussing hope that I can only imagine easily if
Americans do come to understand these basic things.
rshowalter
- 03:31pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1086
of 1088) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
It is worth remembering that animals, including especially human
animals, are opportunistic, and that misunderstanding can produce
niches where groups of people can make a lot of money without
anybody knowing. And then, these people will have both motive and
power to see that the misunderstanding continues. I'm afraid that
this may have happened.
But the conspiracy part may have other explanations.
The misunderstanding part is real beyond question.
almarst-2001
- 03:46pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1087
of 1088)
Robert,
You may have missed what I mentioned before, I am not Russian.
While being born there and educated there, I spent more then half of
my life in Israel and US. I am not sure what average Russian thinks
today about US. But back then, in 60s and 70s, there was almost
unquestionable admiration, despite the intense negative propaganda
(some of what I can now see as very justified).
We grew up used to question the Soviet media and always tried to
read between the lines. My expectations of Western media,
particularelly the US, was very different. The more was I
disappointed. Sorry for using the dreadful words to describe my
extream disappointment.
Regardless, it is my deep belief, the West, the US, and the
Russia lost a great opportunity in the last 10 years. If it was an
intent to bring the Cold War back, the NATO actions make perfect
sence.
Instead of practically unhided policy to marginalize, insult and
diminish Russia (why no one remembers history lessons of Germany
after WWI?), the West should have concentrate on integrating the
Russia. Particularely, to buy and use its excelent aviation,
missiles and military technology, instead of requiring the new NATO
members to discard it and use US arms. When Europe needed the heavy
military transport plane, it could cooperate with Russia which have
very good machines in service. That could give Russia a much needed
confidence as well as cash. Same applies to all other aspects of
technology and scines, Russia traditionally exelled thanks to great
educational system.
Even if motives where good, the consequences could hardly be
worst. It is just a miracle, Russia did not embrace the
ultra-nazionalism and militarism. Despite all the actions of NATO
and US.
rshowalter
- 04:08pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1088
of 1088) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I wrote this before reading almarst-2001
3/16/01 3:46pm . Now I have two very important, hard to
face posts to repond to. Posts which raise essential issues.
While I work on my responses, which I find challenging, can I
recall a story of two peasants? Their conversation and argument went
far afield. And then one asked that they remember that they were
talking about "one loaf of bread." Something finite,
relatively small, not gradiloquently vast. Something that could be
accomplished, and that would have value.
Let me cite again rshowalter
3/15/01 7:52pm and passages before it.
Then I'll go back to responding to your very well taken but, for
an American, hard to face points.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
button below. See the quick-edit
help for more information.
|