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?

rshowalter - 10:54am Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2263 of 2266)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A fine lead editorial today, with one sentence that seems to me to be particularly weighty.

China and the United States " President Bush should settle on a long-term strategy for China that protects American interests while encouraging China to play a constructive role as it assumes its natural place as a great power." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/15/opinion/15SUN1.html

It includes:

" As George W. Bush has discovered early in his presidency, relations with China can be exquisitely intricate and challenging. The two nations are nascent military rivals with incompatible political systems.

Think of the second sentence: "The two nations are nascent military rivals with incompatible political systems."

I'd expand as follows:

" The two nations are nascent military rivals because they have incompatible political systems, and the task of building a permanent and stable, peaceful and good relationship is to find ways to make their political systems (including the systems of ideas in place) not identical , but compatible enough.

That will take some honesty, and some thoughtful talk, from all of the main actors involved. Resolving differences, step by step, in interactions that make sense step by step.

We are at risk of war, and in tension, because of deceptions, unacknowledged mistakes, and largely intellectual failures, including moral failures, involving all concerned.

It would be easier to fix these problems than to continue our ugly, dangerous drift into unnecessary conflict.

All sides would have to change some -- and all sides have a right to ask that others involved consider some changes, in the interest of compatability, and complex cooperations that can work.

rshowalter - 12:34pm Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2264 of 2266)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Many of these conversations do not need to involve the United States.

This may be especially true with respect to key problems of communist and ex-communist states. When Russia made efforts to find ways to achieve peaceful coexistence, that was a good idea -- and though there were other problems, the US worked hard to keep peaceful coexistence from happening.

Nor was the success of Russia after the fall of the USSR really permitted - in decisive ways, it was subverted.

Peaceful, productive, complex cooperation between nation states that do not have to include the United States may be entirely practical. Essential.

The US could not stop such relations, and may not even want to.

In any event, the US does not have to be "included" in all, or all important, international relations, and trade relations between other states.

She has no practical nor moral right to be.

lunarchick - 03:10pm Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2265 of 2266)
lunarchick@www.com

As i said above, my take on the China situation was that Bush goaded China - in a rude (where was that southern ettiquette?)manner ... and a 5000+ civilization determined to test him out.

China is a funny old place, there are provinces and towns within them. The people make out as best they can .. but, to innovate they do it - see if it works, and then pretend they did nothing - and go to Central Government for express permission to take the new action. Eventually the Central Government will be refreshed to meet the needs of progressive Chinese.

rshowalter - 03:37pm Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2266 of 2266)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The question of the legitimacy of the current Chinese regime ought to be raised in detail -- not because I necessarily doubt it, but because others do. The idea that the humanity and rights of the Chinese can be dismissed by reference to some past or present wrongdoing is attractive to some Americans -- and any nation state can be dehumanized in this way (including the US.) But the question ought to be --

" is this nation-state, on its own terms, in terms of the culture of the people it governs, keeping faith, and representing the needs of its people, or not, considering the situation as a whole, with the complications and problems that are there? . . . Is it keeping faith with the reasonable needs of other people and nations in terms of what can reasonably be asked under the circumstances? "

No nation would get a perfect score, in terms of those questions, judged by a majority of the community of nations. But I believe that both China and Russia would pass the tests involved with these questions, and that they have done so for a long time.

Defamation of character, attribution of insanity, and similar usages that dehumanize can cost a nation state dearly. When the United States justifies its actions by such appeals, it ought to be asked, much more clearly than it is being asked, what it means.

China is a legitimate nation.

Not flawless, by any means. But worth of quite a lot of respect, on the whole, faults and all.

The same can be said of Russia.

I think, when people try to "justify" first use of nuclear weapons, dehumanization of the human targets is a necessary step. It is essentially never justifiable to use nuclear weapons on real human beings. If that were more clearly understood and enunciated by the community of nations, we'd have made great progress toward the preservation of the world.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense