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?

gisterme - 09:29pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10063 of 10064)

gisterme 10/2/01 9:25pm (continued)

"...4. Being by far the most powerful and safe nation, the US can and should be the least agressive one..."

It is most of the time, unless human rights, international law and or UN resolutions are being ignored and innocent blood is being spilled. The US is also very aggressive during during times of war.

"...It should lead by example..."

It does. Sobodan Milosevich is a perfect example. I doubt we'll see another like him in the Balkans any time soon. At least not among the Serbs.

"...It should obstain of exercising its power and influence precisely because its so powerful..."

Just being powerful is obvioulsy not enough to prevent evil acts. Static power is of no use whatsoever. That's why all the multitudes of ICBMs in the world are useless. In my view, the folks behind the events of 9/11 hoped the US would be paralyzed, i.e. that it's power would be rendered static due to public opinion following horrific events. The opposite occured. As the fall-back position those barbarians would have hoped that the US would lash out indiscriminatly at innocents. In either case, their real goal, the spilling of innocent blood would have been maximized. I'll tell you, Alex, those folks made a serious mistake. They're dead wrong on both accounts. They're going to have to attend to unnecessary blood-letting themselves.

"...Least of all it should use a military force for the purpose of promoting its own interests..."

We don't use military force for promoting our own interests almarst. We do use it for protecting our interests, our friends and occasionally basic human rights. That's what military power is about. You'll notice that the US has never used its military power solely for the purpose of foreign conquest. The case in Serbia/Kosovo was one of human rights. The Serbs are now free and doing very nicely, thank you. Nothing has been imposed on them. They were not occupied by some foreign invader. They now have liberty to choose their own path. Thier former war-criminal dictator is before a war-crimes tribunal WHERE HE BELONGS.

"...Just as in a daily life, the more power one has, the stricter rules of conduct are imposed upon one. and justifiebly so..."

I must disagree with the way that you've framed that statement, almarst. We should all have the SAME rules of conduct internationally whether we're the strongest or the weakest. The same international law applies to all. What comes with power is not a different code of conduct but greater responsibility. What comes to any powerful nation is the responsibility to do the right thing for the world, not just for itself. In my view, the days of territorial empire are over because of world wide instantaneous communication and the tremendous advances in global transportation.

"...IF THOSE VALUES ARE REAL. As I hope they are."

Those values are quite real, almarst. Let's remember that no person or nation will always make the right decision about any particular thing. Absolute perfection is unattainable by us mere mortals. Still, most of us can and do learn by our mistakes and have a pretty good track record for applying what's been learned. You'd have to agree that that's true for most individuals and nations who don't insist on repeating the same mistake and for whom the first mistake is not fatal.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense