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 - 01:25pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4083 of 4113)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think you are.

I'm about to drive, so can't take long.

My guess is that people are going to get better at being human, or we're all going to die.

Some of the things on this thread, and some of the things in the world now, if you think about them, are very scary.

Things are going a lot worse, in some ways, than seems possible. AIDS is an example. A lot of things in the last decade with respect to nuclear weapons, and Russia seem to me to be other examples.

People make their own minds -- and make each other's minds -- and make culture -- in interaction. Much, much too often, it is done without checking - on the basis of fictions -- and often ill matched fictions among groups.

I'm not sure I know much, but this seems clear to me. People have to work out their problems in terms of what they believe to be true.

We have to find better ways to check facts, when those facts matter - in a world so complicated we can't keep track of what matters.

We HAVE to observe ourselves, and each other, more sympathetically, but also more objectively than we do.

Alex, I think your comment is great . I bet Solzhenetsyn would have felt so, too.

I have to go. Have a good weekend.

gisterme - 02:49pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4084 of 4113)

almarst wrote: "...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...."

Didn't say it was the only reason, almarst. The main reason for the cold war was Soviet occupation of eastern Europe. The fundamental difference between communism and free market economies is how wealth is managed. The ability to use your own personal talents, skills and labor to pursue your own dreams, and to do whatever you want with the fruits of your labor are considered fundamental to the condition of "liberty". This is not the view taken by the communist approach. That kind of liberty can't exist without a free market. Let's be fair here, though. The US government also takes it's pound of flesh via the IRS. The difference is in that the US Government only attempts to manage part of your wealth, not all. They leave enough with the individual so that the individual can participate in the marketplace. Also, don't forget that it was the Soviets who were making their perceived economic benefits of communism the issue at the time. Remember the "kitchen debate" between Kruschev and Nixon? "We will bury you!" (meaning economically) is what Mr. Kruschev said with a big smile on his face. The Soviets often tried to use the economic idiology arguement to deflect attenton away from the central issue of eastern European occupation. In the west the Soviet economic ideology was deemed to be more like a malignant tumor on the world economy than anything else.

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.

Fair enough, almarst but the Brits and Japanese didn't quite use the same methods did they? I don't recall any British episodes similar to Nanking or any British use of Chinese citizens as human guinea pigs in bio-weapons experiments. But that's beside the point too. The age of empire was already coming to a close for all the reasons before mentioned. The world just didn't know it yet. Britain's empire was already doomed. China had huge market potential. Everybody wanted to develop it except Japan who wanted to annex it.

...The US did not fight the Victors of Versailles to change the situation in Germany...

That's right almarst, the US was one of those victors. That's what I mean by "lesson learned". That's why the Marshal Plan rather than strict punitive measures following the defeat of Germany and Japan. That's why rebuilding rather than recrimination.

The Britain did not place an economic and trade blocade against America.

Other than tariffs and embargoes that's true, almarst, at least until the war of 1812 when the Brits realized that the "colonies" weren't going to just wither on the vine or come crying for help. The the British then blockaded and invaded (War of 1812). I'll also dispute your claim that the US was not dependent on international trade. In the beginning, the US had virtually no industrial capacity. Many manufactured goods had to be imported from Europe or elsewhere. That's why the US has been a mercantile maritime nation from the beginning.

That what I would call the ultimate efficiency;)

...mixed with a serious dose of fantasy...I will grant that few banks wherever they may be located will turn away a depositor. Unfortunately most stolen money isn't identified as such.

You will have to show me what their leader did to cause their problem, (WRT North Korea)

The North Korean "leader" has isolated his people from the world economy and spent what

gisterme - 02:54pm May 18, 2001 EST (#4085 of 4113)

gisterme response (#4084)to almarst continued:

You will have to show me what their leader did to cause their problem, (WRT North Korea)

The North Korean "leader" has isolated his people from the world economy and spent what he does have on Chinese and Russian weapons. Other stuff is fairly petty by comparison. A good example of the "efficiency ;)" point you were just fantasizing about.

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

Glad you brought that up almarst. Again, there's a cold war legacy there as the cause, same arguement. Unlike Veit Nam, the happenings in Cuba resulted from a Soviet offensive. The US economic embargo of Cuba since Casto accepted the Soviet bribe of economic subsidy and free weapons is not a military action. One attribute of the free economy is that you can sell your goods to whomever you please...or not. That's quite independent of any requirement for or tendency toward altruism. Economic tools have always been used as instruments of national policies. Unfortunately, like Viet Nam, both cold war contenders used Cuba as a battlefield. But since then, Casto's ben acting like just another wanna-be emperor who has mismanaged Cuba's wealth and foreign policy to bring them to their current economic condition. Castro himself has always had the power to end that embargo. He must fear that he'd have to give up too much of his personal power to do that. It's a shame that he seems to care so little for the well-being of his own subjects.

(28 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense