|
![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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?
    (2188 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 11:04am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2189
of 2191) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
For example, suppose every major country, and most minor ones,
excluding the United States, negotiated the following, and organized
so that the limited, clear threat made was credible.
"If any nation state in the world uses weapons of
mass destruction on another nation state, without permission of
one quarter of the signatories here, and kills more than 1000 of
them, we will, together, all of us, hold any national of that
nation state hostage, and hold any assets of that nation state in
an immobilized condition, to be confiscated by each holding nation
within one year of the mass destruction.
The hostages will be held indefinitely, and the
assets held, or confiscated, unless all the nationals of the
nation state perpetrating the mass destruction who are directly
responsible for that destruction, from the highest to the lowest,
are surrendered to an international court. This court will be
staffed by nationalities not including the offending nation
state, for trial and punishment for war crimes, with the
punishments to be proportional to the mass murder done - subject
to the moral and aesthetic standards that court may establish."
This wouldn't be fancy.
It wouln't have to involve the United States.
But if it were done, it might clarify the thinking of many people
involved in military policy, all over the world.
And it would express views, both practical and moral, that many
Americans would be able to understand, and might come to sympathize
with.
Negotiating for such an agreement might involve interesting
discussions and clarifications, from many points of view.
The US would have no sufficient practical power to stop this from
happening. Nor would she have any valid moral right to object.
rshowalter
- 11:15am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2190
of 2191)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I believe that this proposal, with suitable modifications to suit
the parties, could be made into institutionalized, enforcable,
credible international law, and that this could be done directly,
gracefully, inexpensively, and with the people involved proud of
themselves, every step of the way.
rshowalter
- 11:36am Apr 12, 2001 EST (#2191
of 2191)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
rshowalter
4/11/01 12:27pm #2161 refers to a Guardian Talk thread ---Is
China's handling of the spy row right?
#396 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee81038/400
#404 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee81038/408
#406 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee81038/411
reads:
" I believe that "becq" was Clinton - others would
be in a position to check. Or if not Clinton, somebody explaining
US nuclear policy as it is.
September 25 - 2000 Missile Defense #279 rshowalt
9/25/00 3:50pm
to beckq
9/25/00 4:10pm by "becq" which reads:
" The utilization of a first strike option
allows for the extended detterence options. less we follow the
Indians view-and let people get knocked off each month because
their 'no first use' has left them with a hand tied behind its
back.
continuing to #292:
" becq: "But we use the "option" of a first
strike routinely in our patterns of discussion"
" becq: "Indeed America does. It does so in a
measured way so as to indicate resolve toward a particular matter.
This was done post 49-prior to 49 your correct the threat was with
impunity-after 49 it became slightly more flexible. Americas
position aknowledges that nuclear weapons exist and that they are
far more a political tool then a military one."
*******
"Far more a political tool than a military one" says that we
use our nuclear weapons as talking points in our discussions, as
threats.
I think that American presidents, diplomats, and military people
make these threats routinely, and shamelessly, and have for years.
It is a crazily irresponsible thing to do.
I feel that the world should get together, and stop the US from
bluffing in this destructive way -- it does far, far too much harm.
US renunciation of first use of nuclear weapons would be a
very good thing for the safety of the whole world. And doing so
ought to be a necessity for the honor of the United States
itself.
I hate to remember a famous quote from H.L. Menken, in his essay
"Valentino", but feel that it applies to US bluffing about nuclear
weapons, and too much else:
" Unfortunately, all this happened in the
United States, where the word "honor," save when it applies to the
anatomical purity of women, has only a comic significance."
Even the thin standard Menken cites has eroded. The quote recurs
to me, too often. Americans can and should do better than deserve
Menken's words.
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.
|
