Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Well, it has been and interesting dry run. Would you happen to
know any senior Russian people who might be contacted?
I'll be back in an hour.
- 03:12pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1328
I am glad you believe me. I started getting to feel uneasy.
Unfortunatly I am not well connected. I wish I would.
Newertheless, I hope it was not entirely waisted time. I hope we
both learned somthing. At least, in one sense, it was an open
exchange between PRIVATE individuals.
My overall feeling is that you are overoptimistic. It may be a
case, the American Public in general is so frightened, it will not
feel safe unless it remains the only power and the rest of the world
This is not only immoral but also a dangerous and faulty
assumption. There never will be ABSOLUTE SAFETY. Even if the rest of
the World would just disappear. Remember my story about a city
- 04:04pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1329
Robert Showalter firstname.lastname@example.org
It isn't safe, even from an exclusively American point of view,
to have others powerless.
Yes I do remember that story. And yes, there ARE limits to the
security any country can have by means of military protection.
I've got some connections that, over the last few days, I've
neglected that may bear fruit. Last year, before one of the election
debates, a truly impressive group of people, organized to try to get
nuclear disarmament "on the agenda" for the debates, was. A massive
effort, when it fails, puts forces into disarray for a time. That's
happened this time.
I thought that President Putin's responses in http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/22/world/22CND-RUSSIA
were very sensible, measured, reasonable reponses, and am heartened
by the attitudes in Europe.
I need to take time, to respond to what has been said. If what
we've said here privately, were said among the leaders of nation
states - even with the US initially holding itself aloof from the
discussions, the detailed basis of ideas for practical,
balanced peace might take shape. I think a journalistic effort to do
a "dry run" treaty, and stories explaining it, might be part of
If two or three governments were tentatively, guardedly
interested in that effort, and said so in private, I believe that
such an effort might be organized, and might establish, beyond
reasonable doubt, that radical reduction of nuclear arms makes
sense. And do so on a basis that would persuade people - something
that is essential now.
Perhaps there are inquiries, through private channels, that I may
be able to make. I hope President Putin, and those he meets in
Sweeden on Friday, can find ways to move toward a more peaceful,
I'll rest a while, and see if I can pursue them.
- 04:33pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1330
And finally, when I mention morality, I am not so sure there is a
common understanding. That why was my question about American
attendance to religion - the basis of morality.
I am also sceptical about how bening the inclusion of people like
Wolfovitz in the US administration team shaping the foreign policy
is. There is a rule in a theater, that "if you see on the scene a
gun hanging on the wall, at some point it will fire". The other
assumption that this team is just an incidental and random
collection of competing for extremism minds is even more
frightening. We are talking about the economical and military
What seems to take place is the following:
During the Cold War, the rules of the game, so to speak, where
clear and all saw the lines on the sand. The breakdown of USSR
appeared to present a "once in a lifetime opportunity" to redrow
those lines and even, if possible, to cris-cross the Russia.
It must be pretty painfull to some in US to see such a huge
economic and military disparity between US and Russia, but still
face and deal with some Russian ambitions and resistance to be
dominated and shown its place.
Those 10 years have being lost for peace. But that because
America insisted on just one way of peace - "I tell and you listen
and do as I say".
That was mostly the case during Cold War in relation to Europe
and other US alies. It became even less tolerable and painfull to
recognise the lost influence over the Europe in addition to
inability to influence the ambitious, stubborn and unrully Russia.
And, I think, in terms of its goals, the Clinton's administration
is not much different from the current. That why I think its more
then just a small group of extremists needs to be overcome. Much
- 05:36pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1331
Robert Showalter email@example.com
If Russia and the other US allies become closer, and feel less
mutually threatening, that will be a big step. I hope things go well
for President Putin, building peace with his closer neighbors.
Ideas have to be checked, and minds often have to change
gradually. Perhaps we've made some progress.
(10559 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science