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?

almarst-2001 - 08:59pm Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6889 of 6894)

TIMOTHY BANCROFT-HINCHEY: NATO GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES BY OWN DEFINITION - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/05/9360.html

"According to definitions used by The Hague Tribunal and by the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, NATO is guilty. Pravda.Ru presents the evidence for a case against NATO in a court of law such as the one at The Hague.

Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:

“Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses”.

NATO’s continuous use of civilian targets for military purposes, a scenario which this military organization wantonly and callously calls “collateral damage”, fits this clause exactly and would be the cornerstone of a case accusing this organisation of being guilty of war crimes.

Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be stipulated:

“Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity”.

Any number of the unprovoked attacks by NATO in Yugoslavia and Iraq in the past decade would fit into this category, namely bombing attacks by NATO on civilian targets and structures. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy, for example, was not a “military necessity”, by NATO’s own definition, because it was officially classified by this organisation as a mistake. In which case, and under Article 3, it was a case of destruction not justified by military necessity and therefore, by its own definition and using the Articles from the Court set up by this organisation, NATO is guilty of war crimes.

However, the case does not stop here. Article 147 of the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, defines the latter as “...deportation or illegal transfer or illegal detention of a protected person...or to purposefully deprive a protected person of his rights of a fair and regular trial...”

What is being done in the case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, apart from being a case of piracy, kidnapping and illegal imprisonment, is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention. Not having been appointed by the United Nations General Assembly, the IPC at The Hague is at most illegal and at least not legal. It is therefore incompetent to try Slobodan Milosevic, or anyone else, for alleged crimes.

More ironic still is this case when we discover that by their own definitions, NATO are guilty of the crimes they accuse others of – in an organism which has no legal substance whatsoever. How the international community tolerates such a scandalous state of affairs and apportions to it such a degree of seriousness is ridiculous and a shame for any country which prides itself on saying that it is a state of law.

rshowalter - 09:01pm Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6890 of 6894)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

People aren't consistent -- Americans aren't, and Russians aren't either.

Dr. Strangelove himself, Edward Teller thought up the idea of missile defense --

Who Built the H-Bomb? Debate Revives by WILLIAM J. BROAD http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/science/24TELL.html

MD2563 rshowalter 4/24/01 7:47pm

And the idea is as awkward as Teller often was -- and at one level, it is an attempt at solution to old problems -- and at another, an additional level of agressiveness.

Nukes are so horrible that the idea of missile defense is attractive -- and not just to Teller -- to many people who sincerely support it, without a thought of what it means agressively.

So the dream of missile defense, at one level, to many people, is blameless -- most people who support missile defense can't imagine that the US would be agressive with nuclear weapons.

But the US has been and continues to be militarily agressive to a gruesome, shameful degree -- a degree not understood, nearly well enough -- by Americans.

And unless that changes -- missile defense is ugly -- partly because it doesn't work -- partly because it is motivated by people who have become evil -- people who love the idea of inflicting death -- people like gisterme , and gisterme's co-workers in the Bush administation, including, I believe, the Bushes.

(Are the Bushes' ambivalent about that? Perhaps a little -- but when it comes time for action -- in my view - - judging especially from the last few months, they are usually low and ugly.)

Missile defense is ambiguous -- and your fear and anger about it is justified.

We need to make real peace.

And while we do, take every reasonable, balanced step to control nuclear threats, step by step, as the human animals we are.

If we do it right -- the world can be a much more peaceful, prosperous place.

And survive.