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?

almarst-2001 - 04:46pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3850 of 3852)

Robert,

What do you think the Yugoslavia could have done differently to avoid the result of what I read was the Western desire to break it down, bring into the turmoil, war and misary, destroy its economy, so it could be easily converted into the indebted vassal ready to saccumb to any desire of Western multinationals and banks to take over its economy, its land, its people for pennies?

The desire with no account or consideration for the consequences to the people. Even may be, with the goal as Lenin once stated: "The worst is for the better".

How the arming of the separatists and terrorists, the mafia criminals and ultra-nacionalsts, the bombing, the sunctions and isolation, the financial black-mailing and blocade organised by the US-led NATO could have being stopped? Which obviously would not happen if the Yugoslavia was in a possesion of nuclear arsenal.

Please make your case for the nuclear disarmament in those circumstances.

rshowalter - 05:02pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3851 of 3852)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'll try and do that. It will take me a little while.

Your phrasing about

what I read was the Western desire to break (Yugoslavia) down, bring into the turmoil, war and misary, destroy its economy, so it could be easily converted into the indebted vassal ready to succumb to any desire of Western multinationals and banks to take over its economy, its land, its people for pennies?

is interesting and important.

That isn't the way many Americans would view it --and if they came to see it that way -- they'd see that the situation changed.

What you say may be more valid than I wish it was -- one of the things I'll try to do is assume that might be true -- and describe what might be done to change it.

I WILL try to make the case for nuclear disarmament, assuming the view of the Yugoslavian situation you set out. Let me take a break, and think about how to begin.

rshowalter - 05:09pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3852 of 3852)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Before I take my break, let's take your case, exactly as you state it, for the purposes of the argument.

How does Yugoslavia STOP

the arming of the separatists and terrorists, the mafia criminals and ultra-nacionalsts,

the bombing, the sunctions and isolation, the financial black-mailing and blocade organised by the US-led NATO

You're right that this "obviously would not have happened if the Yugoslavia was in a possesion of nuclear arsenal."

Let me grant that the ability to inflict some penalties may have been required to keep these things from happening. That is, let me grant that some deterrant force would have been necessary.

Deterrant force would not have been nuclear.

I'm off for a while, maybe more than an hour -- I need to think more about your excellent, and admirably specific question.

A question that is a special case of a more general and very important question:

Suppose my adversary is a totally merciless and evil son_fa_itch -- can I get by without having nukes?

The answer is yes.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense