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 - 09:19am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2312 of 2316)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

-- and the US needs to respond, not just by words, though words are important, but also by deeds -- to give a satisfactory answer to such questions.

Friedman goes on to make another valid point:

" But then, the biggest mistake China's leaders could make is to believe their own myths — that China represents such a big, lucrative market the U.S. will always bend their way. . . . . .

" You cannot have a normal relationship with an individual or a country whose attitude is: When you are wrong you must apologize, and when I am wrong you must apologize.

"But there are red lines of international law that China has crossed, and the U.S.-China relationship can't be sustained without maintaining both the bridges and the red lines. So friends of China need to let China's leaders know that they too have mail — from America — and they would be wise to read it.

The need for communication, and accomodations that make complex cooperation possible, need to be recalled, both ways.

As that is considered, Almarst's question, and the reasons and feelings behind it, ought to be carefully considered.

There are many reasons, well set out by Almarst on this thread, why that question about substance, and not mere "public relations" ought to be considered.

It would be beautiful if facts were such that Friedman's piece could be considered totally right, totally beautiful, totally fit to circumstances. It would be good to change circumstances so that it becomes more so. That will take much conversation, and some actions, too.

rshowalter - 09:33am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2313 of 2316)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 4/15/01 3:37pm

rshowalter - 10:21am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2314 of 2316)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 4/16/01 10:03am
rshowalter 4/16/01 10:56am
rshowalter 4/16/01 10:58am

rshowalter - 11:07am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2315 of 2316)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/17/world/17OKIN.html Despite China, Okinawans Tire of U.S. Military by HOWARD W. FRENCH

Much of the world is now, clearly, under US protection, and the military cites the need to maintain this protection as a reason for spy flights and other things.

Concerning the people being protected:

1. Does anyone have a clear sense, that could be documented, about what fraction of the people involved feel grateful for the protection, not in the past, but now and for the future?

2. Does anyone have a clear sense, that could be documented, about what fraction of the people involved feel the need for the protection?

3. Does anyone have a clear sense of how many political leaders and government officers, of the nations being protected, feel the need for this protection, compared to those who do not?

Perhaps the number feeling the need for protection is very large, and perhaps they have good reasons to feel so. These are questions of fact and interpretation subject to evidence.

The facts should be set beside our military actions and expenditures. The protection we provide could be set against its costs, and focused questions might be raised on whether the protection -- the freedom from military risk, that justifies the American presence might be provided in other ways.

If the American presence is only, or predominantly, in the service of needs now past, or needs only felt by the United States itself, that ought to be clear -- both inside and outside the United States.

One might ask a related question ---

- How many people in the world feel "protected" by nuclear weapons, in the hands of anyone?

The fraction of the human race grateful for nuclear weapons is likely to be small indeed -- and that seems a fine reason to eliminate them.

rshowalter - 11:08am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2316 of 2316)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

An important first step would be to renounce first use of them (and, as an important consequence, stop threatening the threat of first use of them).

An important next step, would be to reduce stockpiles from the Mutually Assured World Destruction level -- to a much lower Mutually Assured Deterrance level.

It would be better to achieve the deterrance that nation states need without nuclear weapons, and it might not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.

But at least our military balances could be better arranged, and more proportionate, to the needs at hand than they now are.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense