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 - 11:08am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2316 of 2320)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

An important first step would be to renounce first use of them (and, as an important consequence, stop threatening the threat of first use of them).

An important next step, would be to reduce stockpiles from the Mutually Assured World Destruction level -- to a much lower Mutually Assured Deterrance level.

It would be better to achieve the deterrance that nation states need without nuclear weapons, and it might not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.

But at least our military balances could be better arranged, and more proportionate, to the needs at hand than they now are.

almarst-2001 - 11:29am Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2317 of 2320)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/17/opinion/17FRIE.html Myth-Matched Nations by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

"...only to ensure that as China moves into the world system it does so by the rules."

There are two non-trivial points in this statement: world system and rules

The existing world system is by an large, a product of Western European origin refined and dominated after WWII by US. The two recently competing alternative systems of USSR-ALIGNED and NON-ALLIGNED states have being recently eliminated after the breakdown of USSR.

It seems quite natural the US goal is to preserve and promote the existing Western-values oriented "world system" where all other nations are subordinate to US interests.

Is it so difficalt to recognise that this world system will be resisted by nations like China? Nations which may view it not only as unnatural to their character and culture, but also as reminder of past Western domination and oppression?

If the described situation is a reason for competition, the US would like to compete by the rules it sees as fair and according to the World Order it designed, promoted, defended and benefited from, becoming the hugely dominating superpower.

But, even assuming the rules are "absolutly fear" (a very iffy assumption), from the relatively small competitor's point of view, it may have a negligeble chance of winning. Can a 10y/o boy cleanly win a boxing match against Mike Tison on a ring?

When there is a competition between a hugely different forces, the only chance the weak can hold is by using what Russians called so frequently today as a assimetrical response.

"When America accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, we apologized."

The US still did not provide a credible explanation for the "accident". Indeed, very fiew believe in US official version even in US.

"But there are red lines of international law that China has crossed"

As I have mentioned, the ever increasing perception is that even those international law - largely the product of US and its NATO alies design, do not apply equaly to US as to the rest of the world. In this particular case the US keeps a 200 to 400 mi restriction zones of its shores insisting on the right to shoot down any unauthorized intruder.

But US also keeps the no-flight zones in Iraq against an international law and without Security Council approval.

And the US-lead NATO bombing of Serbia is one of the most terrible crimes against international law since WWII.

So, Mr. Friedman. If you feel disappointed about China you should understand my disappointment about you.

rshowalter - 12:13pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2318 of 2320)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But I remember, one that the piece on the whole is constructive, and also remember the very many excellent things that Friedman has done, and the ideas he's crafted that I've learned from.

rshowalter - 12:15pm Apr 17, 2001 EST (#2319 of 2320)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

rshowalter 3/26/01 8:36pm
rshowalter 3/26/01 8:46pm

Facing N. Korea, fear may be a reasonable response -- but it is not, reasonably, the sole response, nor should solutions be based only on fear, and only on hostility for the North Koreans.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense