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 - 12:32pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5950 of 5955)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The only reason that history matters is that it needs to be remembered to make decisions that shape the future.

MD5525 rshowalter 6/20/01 11:06am ... MD5527 rshowalter 6/20/01 11:10am
MD5528 almarst-2001 6/20/01 11:19am ... MD5529 rshowalter 6/20/01 11:20am
MD5530 rshowalter 6/20/01 11:23am ... MD5531 rshowalter 6/20/01 11:25am

MD5532 reads:

" almarst has come up with one outrage after another-- and some seem likely to be right (and can be checked) and gisterme's response has been, with a little fuzz and moderation in spots, basically this --

"In a war, we can do anything at all, to anyone."

and, operationally, gisterme seems to say

" and we get to decide when it is war."

Missile defense, stripped of context, is not the main barrier to peace. This concern, by Russia and many other countries, is the key problem.

That's why looking at the ideas of Kissinger, still deeply influential in American foreign policy, is important.

rshowalter - 12:32pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5951 of 5955)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

See for yourself if you agree that Friedman's criticism of Henry Kissinger applies to gisterme , as well. Read what gisterme writes: rshowalter 6/20/01 11:34am

rshowalter - 12:33pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5952 of 5955)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD5784 rshowalter 6/22/01 1:05pm

" The following was, for a time, featured on the wonderful and distinguished Encyclopedia Britannica web site. It has been removed, and links to it are not available. I'm including it here, because it gathers together wonderful references (some removed, but many remaining) that I believe are important to see, when one asks about what Friedman meant when he said that he had

" no doubt that Kissinger is as cynical, mean and nasty a bureaucratic infighter and player of the game of nations as his most venomous critics have charged. At times, he can make Machiavelli sound like one of the Sisters of Mercy. . . ."

Henry Kissinger on Trial: A Guide to the Controversy Surrounding the Diplomat February 2001

MD5785 rshowalter 6/22/01 1:05pm ... MD5786 rshowalter 6/22/01 1:06pm
MD5787 rshowalter 6/22/01 1:06pm ... MD5789 rshowalter 6/22/01 1:10pm

5789 reads :

"Put this beside other "details" -- and it seems to me that one can retain your admiration for the United States, and for Kissinger, for many other things, and yet still understand, in view of all the circumstances, how people like almarst (or Putin) could have concerns -- - and ask that the United States give assurances that it will not act in the sort of way these documents show in the future.

THAT is the primary impediment to peace and prosperity in the world -- there are many other difficult matters, as well -- but for getting to closure, this issue of US behavior is the "show stopper."

" Negroponte might be the ideal man to put it right if he acknowledged what he and others in the Kissingerian tradition did , but if he's unwilling to do that, it is hard for me to imagine a worse choice for Ambassador to the United Nations. "

rshowalter - 12:34pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5953 of 5955)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There's a joke, attributed to Kissinger, that goes:

" The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

With nuclear weapons involved, such jokes aren't funny, but they can be useful as cautions.

rshowalter - 12:38pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5954 of 5955)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I believe that the situation set out in JUST WHAT GAME IS PUTIN PLAYING? by Patrick E. Taylor http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/24/weekinreview/24TYLE.html reflects the actions of a careful, concerned negotiator.

A leader and negotiator, interested in peace and the welfare of his country, who has the concerns almarst has expressed.

Concerns that the records involving Kissinger reflect.

The issue is important, not because the past can be changed, but because the things done in the past help us judge the future.

We'd like the future to be better than the past, and it seems to me that people around the world have a moral right to ask us to take verifiable, credible steps to see that they are.

dirac_10 - 12:42pm Jun 24, 2001 EST (#5955 of 5955)

Those things you have been worring about, but are scared to mention? They are all true. Including, you know what.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense