New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(1998 previous messages)
- 12:22pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#1999
China-Mideast conundrum - http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010405-782325.htm
"... To illustrate China´s growing energy dependence, an oil
expert, Milton Copulos, estimates that by 2010 Chinese oil imports
will reach 80 percent from the Persian Gulf... "
"... China´s starvation for oil has forced it to go beyond
their Asian sphere to places as far as Sudan..."
The rest of the article is mostly fiction to avoid saying openly
the main point of contention: The US and China energy needs will
force them into confrontation.
- 01:43pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2000
4/5/01 12:22pm Confrontation can be competition -- it doesn't
have to mean war, and it shouldn't. Japan competes in the
world for energy, all of which she imports. She, and many other
countries, have made that work.
Markets, and the rule of law, are much more humane, and except
for small groups of predators, more efficient, than power politics
backed by military action and the threat of it.
The United Nations, for all its failings, stands for that. And
the need for international law, and lawfulness, is
substantial, because oil IS one of the resources that can motivate
"rational" military agressions, unless those agressions are
restrained by international legal means.
- 01:46pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2001
An effective international law is important. And nation
states need to be able to get their essential interests served by
it, insofar as possible. That can take a lot of talking. Dawn and I
have been proposing a lot of talking (and doing a lot of talking)
because ideas and talking can be quite practical. They are the stuff
international law, and international cooperation, are largely made
- 01:48pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2002
Oil is a big problem.
The need for oil has in the past, and can now, motivate wars.
If the objective is to subjugate another complicated
sociotechnical system - advanced societies are prohibitively
difficult to enslave. In that sense, it doesn't make any practical
sense for one country to try to conquer another. Complex societies
have too many defenses.
Unfortunately, it can make a great deal of practical sense
(morals aside) to use military force, overtly and covertly, against
weak opposition, to gain control of oil fields. --- Just as it can
"make sense" (against weak opposition) to take land for agriculture
- if the people on it are simple slaves, as has happened for
thousands of years, and as still happens in backward areas, or if
the people on it are to be exterminated (Germany's objective in
Russa and Poland in WWII. )
These are solid reasons why nation states need defenses - they
need to be strong enough to keep from being enslaved, and keep from
losing natural resources that CAN be military objectives (as a
working complex sociotechnical system can no longer be.)
The logic of the United Nations was to outlaw agressive wars. And
in large measure, that's succeeded. It doesn't happen often that one
nation state invades another, and when it does happen, recent
experience tends to show that the invader gets the worst of it.
The more open information flows are, the harder suprise attacks
are, and the less chance an invader has.
Truth - much more often than not, is stabilizing, and on the side
of justice and peace. Military actions that "are worthwhile" to the
agressor almost always require deception.
- 01:54pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2003
If bombing were outlawed, that would be very stabilizing.
If penalties for "collateral damage" were charged against
bombers -- it would be an enormously powerful step. The american
argument that it can project power at low cost to itself rests on
willingness to use bombing, and rests on the inability of nation
states to shoot US planes down at high enough rates to make bombing
prohibitively expensive, or make it prohibitively expensive in some
Can I envision a world that could truly live in peace? For
advanced countries, if bombing was effectively outlawed, I can. If
bombing was outlawed, or became prohibitively expensive on technical
grounds, a PEACEFUL world, based on workable defenses, could be
constructed. (For advanced societies.) It would be straightforward
to do, with the technical means and information flows now at
MUCH better control of nuclear weapons, which is necessary for
the survival of the world, would be a major step in that direction.
Outlawing of nuclear bombs, by a huge factor the worst kind of bombs
morally, would be another huge step.
But for practical reasons, getting past "the age of bombing"
seems to me to be the thing required for a really stable age of
world peace. That includes an effective prohibition (with workable
penalties) of terrorist bombing.
That peace would still need military forces. It would not be the
brotherhood of man. But for a world inhabited by people "a little
lower than the angels" it would be far better than what we
have and fear now.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science