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?

applez101 - 04:31pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4060 of 4083)

So what's everyone's take on Bush's energy plan?

Personally, I'm quite concerned about the synergism of both NMD and his suggestion that the US end its 25 year moritorium on nuclear fuels reprocessing. One might be able to get by with one or the other, but in combination, I think it will only convince the Chinese, Russians, and others of a hidden US armament agenda.

Bush may have talked about unilaterally reducing the US's weapons stockpile, but how likely will that happen if he then finds China & others arming themselves?

He is so reactive and is tripping over his own feet...he is producing the justification that he desires for a ratcheting up of all the armed forces.

rshowalter - 04:52pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4061 of 4083)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I don't think it is that simple. I'm concerned, too -- but it is not that simple.

applez101 - 05:14pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4062 of 4083)

Look at it from China's point of view:

The US is going helter-skelter trying to find 'rogue' states to protect itself against.

It keeps several divisions in South Korea and Japan while arming the Japanese and Taiwanese.

A new Pentagon paper talks about pushing forward technology to counter the new 'Chinese threat' (i.e. the handful of missile destroyers they've bought from the Russians) and to develop new long-range arms.

The US also proposes NMD, which even if only a theatre missile defence form, will probably counter the majority of China's strike ability, and nullifies China's nominal nuclear deterrence.

Add that with a US proposal to start collecting plutonium again, well, you can see why they might get a bit anxious. Add to that the very possessive way the Americans have been about space access generally (including that whole tech-transfer Irridium debacle) and China is sure to feel very cornered...with very little justification in their view (and in much of the world's view for that matter).

I should probably throw in the embassy bombing for good measure. :)

almarst-2001 - 05:36pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4063 of 4083)

gisterme 5/17/01 3:56pm

Do you imply in your point that the one and only interest of the US foreign policy is to ensure the free and fair trade between nations?

Even if that would be correct, here some of the remaining questions:

If the free trade is so beneficial for all and the only goal of US involvement, why do you need all this military and other means of pressure to convince other nations to act in what whould be in their clear interests? Why not to let them learn free and on their own pace from the example of US success, instead of pushing the US-devised solutions down their throats? This is clearly counterproductive. The $300bn military budget could be used better to this goal, if even a small portion of it would be spend on a free education, healthcare and helping the nations infrastructure to bring them up-to-date to the markets, whouldn't it?

On OPEC.

You shopuld know that the OPEC holds just the beginning of the oil pipe line. The rest belongs mostly to the US, British and Dutch corporations which incidently got a huge $ windfall from the high oil prices. They also control most of exploration facilities, the OPEC depends upon. Indeed, the US economy as a whole may suffer from the high oil prices, but not nearly as much as most of the rest of the world.

On Free Market.

In my view, the difference in today's world from the colonial times is similar to the difference between feudalistic and the industrial societies. When feudal owned the land and used the free peasants work directly, industrial revolution created and enforced the power of capital which uses the have-nothing and interchangable work force, completely dependent but not directly owned by a capitalist. That turned out to be much more efficient to the capital, but all know what suffering and turmoil it produced before the establishement of a advanced socio-economical system in Europe after all the wars, unrests and revolutions. Don't you see that coming on a world-wide scale? To crush such an unrests, it may indeed be usefull to have a military like the US has - the global policemen to ensure no trade unions or other interuptions to the most "productive" use of the capital ".

I find it quite cynical to declare that there can be a fair market competition between nations with such an economical disparity and capital (concentrated in litarally just a fiew hands)dependency.

But back to the military.

The US actions in too many places can't be justified by your assumption to make it a rule rather then exception. And even more cynical would be assumption that by bombing and destroying the nation, unwilling to participate in a "free market", the remainding rouines would suit it better.

Please help me to sort it out, if you can.

(20 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense