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 - 10:00pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1928 of 1932)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@174.GsdcaCYdlYK^5442064@.f0ce57b/1549
rshowalter 3/24/01 12:14pm
rshowalter 3/24/01 12:38pm
rshowalter 3/24/01 12:42pm
rshowalter 3/24/01 12:42pm

We can, and must, act.

almarst-2001 - 10:23pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1929 of 1932)

On War Crime Tribunal:

I support the impartial and independent one, fully open to the wide public, confirming to the well established and commonly recognized judicial process.

I am not a lawer, but it seems to me the one for Yugoslavia does not fall into this category.

- It is financed by a NATO (particularely US)

- It gather evidence from NATO services

- It hides the indictement details

- It hides the vitnesses identity

- It rejects investigation of NATO's conduct

- It does not investigate the KLA or Islamic terrorists (Bosnians and from abroad, including Afganistan, Pakistan and Kuwait)

- It does not recognise the complexity of centuries of Balkan's history, including the very recent one during the WWII)

- It indicted the Milosovic for the war crimes in Kosovo before any evidence was even gathered, except from NATO's allegations, most of which proved to be wrong.

- It indicted Milosovic for the war vrimes in Bosnia and Croatia after the Dyton accord was signed by Milosovic who was not indicted at that time till the beginning of the NATO bombardement

- It did not investigate the Tudjiman nor Isabegovic giving the impression of being a NATO tool against Serbia

It is also my oppinion that the crimes commited on the ground mostly by paramilitary bandits by all sides of this war can't be justified but can be understood. That was a continuation of the centuries-old bloody ethnical conflict for the land ownership and heritage of the nations. However, the criminal acts of NATO countries can't be justified, nor understood. This was an example of a western political agenda executed on the blooded body of the Balkans, in line with many prior "games" played by the "great powers" in this region. All of whom incited and utilised the nacionalistic extremists of the Balkan nations to their own gain.

almarst-2001 - 10:37pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1930 of 1932)

Robert,

Here is a statement supporting my view: - liang1a "Chinese Politics" 4/2/01 10:00pm

"The reason why the US is so contemptuous of China is because of two main reasons. The first is the lack of a credible nuclear deterrent. When the USSR had a large nuclear arsenal and prepared to use it, the US was very careful not to provoke it. But China has no credible nuclear arsenal at all. The 18 ICBMs is purely symbolic. As a nuclear deterrent it is a joke. While it is a very good gesture of peaceful intents of China, it is interpreted by the US only as a lack of will to use the nuclear weapons. Therefore, given the clear inferiority of the Chinese conventional weapons, the US has no fear of retalitation from China and feel safe to provoke China any way it wants. Given this situation, the only remedy is for China to quickly deploy a credible nuclear deterrent. While I have always advocated devoting the majority of China's resources to building up the economy, I have also pointed out the absolute necessity for China to have a credible nuclear deterrent. It is not necessary to have more nuclear warheads than the US. It is only necessary to have some 1,000 warheads with means of delivery, by ICBMs or submarines or long range bombers. Right now the ICBMs are the most effective. So I hope China would quickly deploy such a credible nuclear deterrent force.

Secondly, China is too dependent on the US for its economic progress. Maybe China really is dependent on the US for its continued economic growth. But I really don't think so. China has laid a very sound infrastructure. Chinese companies have acquired a lot of management innovations. Chinese universities are enrolling and graduating more students than the US. All of these will permit China to continue expanding economically. In any event, trade with the US is only slightly more than that with Taiwan. And China really isn't getting the best technologies from the US. America won't even sell China medium size computers; and China really doesn't need America's medium computers because it already can produce supercomputers.

The very strong emphasis on the entry to WTO also misleads the US to think that the Chinese economy would collapse without US help. As I have pointed out often this is not true. China can get along without WTO. In fact WTO could actually be dangerous to the Chinese economy if China joined under unfair conditions. In any event, China ultimately need to expand its own internal economy. Very soon, the Chinese economy would be so big that it simply cannot be dependent on outside trade. China does not need to depend on the outside world in general and certainly not on the US in particular. And in the long term, China must depend on itself anyway.

Considering the above two reasons why the US is provoking China militarily, China must immediately deploy the credible nuclear deterrent force; and deemphasize the WTO while making greater efforts to expand the internal economy. China must stay engaged with the rest of the world including the US. But China must also be able to protect itself and be self-reliant economically. Then and only then will the US respect China and stop provoking China and killing Chinese people. In the end this will be safer for all. "

The American unballanced power and behavier raises fear among many nations that the only credible deterrence would be a significant nuclear arsenal.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense