New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

almarst-2001 - 11:29pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2227 of 11890)

rshowalter 4/13/01 6:16pm

Robert,

May be I am too harsh on Friedman, but in my view, his "One Nation, 3 Lessons" is just intellectually empty.

Let's start from his "lessons":

"(1) When dealing with China, carry a big stick and a big dictionary."

This is a paraphrasing (hope I did not invent a new English word here;) of what I believe Al Kapone used to say much better: "If you want to be respected, speak quietly but cary a big gun".In short, not only empty phrase, but olmost naked plagiat.

"2) This is an inherently unstable relationship."

While may be so, the explanation he gave is plainly nonsense. Stabilizing - Trade and investment, Destabilizing - Totalitarian regime and Nationalism.

As a historical fact, the Totalitarian regimes are much more stable and consistent in their policies. As for Democraties - just look at the change from Clinton to Bush from the China's perspective. In short - a plain demagogy.

To the Friedman's plus, he did mentioned Taiwan in the same phrase. But this really importand reason for US-china confrontation was not expanded nor explained. And not without reason. The Taiwan absorbed into China will dramatically change the geostrategic ballance for the whole region. It will make the strategic and possibly oil-producing South China Sea and internal China area, cutting Japan and S.Korea from Indian and Pacific Oceans, main oil routes and US 7th Fleet. This will force Japan and S.Korea to seek a close relations with China and likely, drop the alegence to US. The stakes here are too high for both US and China to let it go without a fight (hopefully just Cold).

"(3) Get used to it — it's going to be this way for a long time."

I think Mr. Friedman decided the two reasons just won't make it for the NYT;)

"These things matter. They matter to a regime whose Communist ideology is largely defunct and whose only basis of legitimacy is its ability to keep incomes rising."

Paradoxically, the reverse argument was made for other Communist/Anti-American dictators. Precisely, the dictators, unlike Democraties, do NOT care about well-being of their people. I think its time to decide one way or the other. At least so could be expected from a leading publicist of a leading newspaper.

"The more China is integrated with the global economy and international rules-based systems like the W.T.O., the more these will be a source of restraint on the regime."

If so, why the US Administrations and Congress consistently use it as a "big stick" treatening the China?

"Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake."

May be true. But how many Democratic goverments you know who admitted their mistakes? By the way, the Nikita Chrushev denounced the Stalin's politics on XX congress of communists Party. Mr. Friedman probably was old enough to remember and recognise such a fact. But for him the facts apparently do not matter much if the theory sounds good enough for the "public". Now, the US still refuses to appologise to Korea and Vietnam. Or, even, to Cuba for this matter. While it is already recognised by all as a foolish policy, the US continues its embargo against Cuba due to the "democratic" influence of a small but crutial electorat in Florida.

"The idea that a slow-moving, propeller-driven surveillance plane, flying on autopilot, rammed into a Chinese fighter jet is ludicrous."

May be. But not more then "mistakenly" bombed Embassy or nuclear submarine surfacing under the fishing boat.

"Taiwan's character — the fact that it is a country that has built itself in America's image, economically and politically"

It is hard to invent anything more ludicrous then this statement. Taiwan was up to the very recently, the military dictatorship, initially established by a military-nazionalistic ruller. Here Mr. Friedman just made a very big fool o

almarst-2001 - 11:31pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2228 of 11890)

(cont)

"Taiwan's character — the fact that it is a country that has built itself in America's image, economically and politically"

It is hard to invent anything more ludicrous then this statement. Taiwan was up to the very recently, the military dictatorship, initially established by a military-nazionalistic ruller. Here Mr. Friedman just made a very big fool of himself and the NYT.

"But Taiwan's history and geography mandate that Taiwan find a way to accommodate with mainland China — without sacrificing its de facto independence or character. China has actually shown a lot of flexibility in proposing different formulas lately, and Taiwan needs to respond. Pass the dictionary."

I wonder what really was in Mr. Friedman's mind...

"A cold war with Russia, a country that made tractors that were more valuable as scrap steel and TV's that blew up when you turned them on, was one thing."

Did Mr. friedman really believed in what his fingers printed?

"Our strategy toward China needs to remain exactly as it was: Build bridges to China everywhere possible, because they have clearly become a source of restraint on the regime"

It all started with Nixon. The China was needed to round-up the containment of USSR. So, what kind of bridges Mr. Friedman has in mind otside a purelly economical which China maintains with dosens of countries today?

Robert,

I hope you will not take it personally. I am pretty sure, if someone in your profession would produce a publication on this level, you would not be able to defend it.

almarst-2001 - 11:47pm Apr 13, 2001 EST (#2229 of 11890)

"Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake."

Let's look at "Democtatic" regimes:

Japan did not admit its crimes in WWII,

Britain, France, Holland and Belgium did not admit their crimes of colonialism

Turkey did not admit genicid against Armenians.

US did not admit its own criminal behavier - the use of Atomic bombs and bombing of Dresden aganst civilian population, napalm and agent Orange in viuetnam, massaceres of civilians in Korea, support for blody Dictatorships and terrorists around the glob, bombing of Serbia and many many more.

(9661 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense