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 - 01:54am May 18, 2001 EST (#4078 of 4083)

gisterme 5/17/01 7:26pm

Will try nevertheless to make some points on your post.

My: "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?"

Yours: "We don't need it for that purpose, and I didn't say free trade was the ONLY goal. But the US seldom seems to do military things that don't have underlying market, trade or economic issues at stake or as an underlying cause. Even the cold war had the contention between Soviet style centralized economy vs. the free market economy as a fundamental component of its argument. "

Any rational war is conducted for the expected economic benefits. But it sounds like a nonsence to state the reason for the war as "to convince someone to convert to the different socio-economical system". It was a buttle cry of Crusaiders to fight to convert to the Christianity. Some my have believed they fought in the name of God. I hope you know better.

Yours: "War with Japan? In the '30s Japan was preventing an awakening China from opening its huge market potential to the rest of the world. A definiate economic issue that lead to war. The Chinese market is not yet completely open to this day because of it."

I wonder what is the basis of that statement. As far as I know, Japan tryed to colonise the China competing with the Britain which tryed to do just the same. To grab the resources and abuse the country and its population to their respective benefit.

Yours: "Hitler? His rise was made possible by the ridiculous economic and industrial restrictions and penalties placed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles. A lesson the US did not forget at the end of WWII."

The US did not fight the Victors of Versailles to change the situation in Germany, at least as far as I understand. Interestingly, the US is the major (if not the only) initiator and supporter of the most draconeus trade sunctions against its "enemies". Some lesson...

Yours: i"Viet Nam? Cold war battle. US was trying to make the USSR's economy unviable enough so that they could no longer subsidize their European empire."

Even if true, it does little sense in promoting a free trade. The US initiated and consistantly applyed restrictions on a trade with Soviet Block countries and prevented the USSR the access to the capital as much as it could. The Europe however was able to provide some loans and manage some trade. I am pretty sure against the wishes and despite the pressure from the US. Just like the today's situation with Cuba.

Yours: "A tragedy for Viet Nam, a bloody miserable thing for all soldiers involved and a tactical defeat for the US. In spite of that it was a strategic cold war victory for the US because the US economy had been much better able to withstand the outlays for that war than the Soviet. "

So, the millions of Vietnamese people and their bombed to the ground country was a legitimate way to drain the resources of USSR? That could have being a goal. But to justify it as a legitimate one, one must be an Evil in an incarnation.

Yours: i"Those are some examples of the kinds of things I meant by economic or free market issues as a cause of military action."

Indeed, some examples...

My: "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."

Yours: "Doesn't that pretty much describe the relative situations of Britain and the new-born United States at the end of the American revolution? By winning its independence the US was able to build its wealth by being a player in the free market and ultimately pass Britain as an economic power."

The Britain did not place an economic and trade blocade against America. And the America at that time did not rely

almarst-2001 - 01:58am May 18, 2001 EST (#4079 of 4083)

gisterme 5/17/01 7:26pm

Cont.

My: "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."

Yours: "Doesn't that pretty much describe the relative situations of Britain and the new-born United States at the end of the American revolution? By winning its independence the US was able to build its wealth by being a player in the free market and ultimately pass Britain as an economic power."

The Britain did not place an economic and trade blocade against America. And the America at that time did not rely much on international trade and was able to provide its needs from within. In fact, it seems the US always maintained a system af tarifs on imports and protected its markets. Still does. There is not much of a "free" from the Free Trade Negotiations. The free markets need no aggreements. Just remove all tarifs and enjoy;)

Yours: "The reason many small countries have such a hard time today is because their rulers steal all the capital their economies should have to work with."

That may be true to a small degree. But even then, where those rullers put the stealed money if not into the Western Banks. To the great delight of the last. But in large, the money is to the larger degree spent on the military equipment, the US is the major exported of. And to make the offer more attractive, the US Government provides the attractive loans (from the same stealed bank accounts?;). And, once endebted, the country loses its independence and is forced to the submission and future edebteness. From time to time, the ruler is bribed to make a "right choice". And the bribed money even does not leave the US bank;) That what I would call the ultimate efficiency;)

My: "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."

Yours: "North Korea is a country that doesn't want to participate in a free market. Nobody's bombing them...their "leader" is the cause of their problems."

You just mentioned the Viet Nam as a valid example.

But the case with N. Korea is not so simple. You will have to show me what their leader did to cause their problem, other then unable to get the reparations from Japan and the access to the US markets as the S. Korea did. May be hi did not want to. But I don't recall anyone asking, not the US for sure.

Cuba is as clear an example of kind of the US policy as one can be.

Please try again;)

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense