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 - 08:52am Mar 12, 2001 EST (#946 of 950)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Every nation state, as a practical matter, should be able to defend itself, with help from allies, in a way sufficient for its security.

Every nation state, as a practical matter, needs to be able to threaten other nation states, in the sense where "to threaten" is "to impose costs" - to a degree sufficient so that its legitimate needs are reasonably respected.

rshowalter - 09:06am Mar 12, 2001 EST (#947 of 950)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst_2001 , I very much respect what you say in almarst-2001 3/11/01 6:03pm and feel that the world would be MUCH safer if more people, and especially more Americans, understood your point of view. I do, however, think that you say things that are right but incomplete, and one thing that is wrong as stated, that acts to eliminate good chances for all practical people who care about their loved ones.

When you say:

. "I see things very diffrently and can't honestly accept your point of view. Nor should other nations like Russia as i mentioned before, china who suffered British colonialial rule and Japanise brutal invasion."

I think you'd be exactly right from a practical point of view, if I could rephrase a bit. Would you disagree with this?"

. No nation state can be expected, when it really counts, to rely on the good intentions or good faith or honesty of another. When things go well, acting on the convention of trust may be efficient and indispensible. But trust must be limited, and nation states must be able to check for what is true themselves, and must be able to defend their own interests themselves.

It seems to me that ordinary, sane successful people live that way, when they can, including well married husbands and wives.

My dog is insisting on his necessary interests, but after a short walk, I'll be back, and talk about ideology, where the situation is more complicated. There, it seems to me, Adolf Berle and some other scholars have said useful things.

rshowalter - 10:02am Mar 12, 2001 EST (#948 of 950)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Emotional Peace In the Middle East --#581 -- Guardian Talk

“Adolf Berle's POWER says basic things about power in human groups of all kinds, that I think are fundamental. Here are his "Five Natural Laws of Power," taken from his preface:

“The "0th" rule is so obvious to Berle that he states it first, but doesn't consider it as a rule of power. It is, in his view, the basic reason for power. "Power is always preferable to chaos, and the forces of chaos in human affairs are always contained by some use of human power." People need order.

“And so, to control chaos, people work in frameworks of power. And, according to Berle, these frameworks are always subject to these rules.

One: Power invariably fills any vacuum in human organization.

Two: Power is invariably personal.

Three: Power is invariably based on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder is eventually displaced.

Four: Power is exercised through, and depends on, institutions. By their existence, they limit, come to control, and eventually confer or withdraw power.

Five: Power is invariably confronted with, and acts in the presence of, a field of responsibility. The two constantly interact, in hostility or co-operation, in conflict or through some form of dialog, organized or unorganized, made part of, or perhaps intruding into, the institutions on which power depends.