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?

gisterme - 01:03pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4382 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...So, gisterme. It seems I am not alone in my oppinion on what you called "just posturing"..."

Here are some other bits from the same analaysis piece you were quoting...

http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/053001.asp#This

So as Bush and Putin prepare for their first summit, both are well aware that the offer on sharing missile-defense technology is a non-starter. But they also know that this opens discussions on the entire U.S.-Russian relationship.

...more than our past "worldly leader" accomplished in eight years, possumdag...

We are once again struck by the incredible usefulness of the missile defense initiative. Even if the system is never built and never works, the plans have been a marvelous cover for a crucial diplomatic initiative that is creating opportunities for the United States and Russia to ventilate about important issues running far deeper than the strict subject of strategic missile defenses.

Still seems like posturing to me, almarst. It's arm-waving, jumping up and down, chest pounding and all the other "body language" not unlike what happens between chimpanzees when different clans meet. The difference is that "our" (human) negotiations only begin with that. They must progress past that stage to be concluded successfully.

almarst wrote: "..This is nothing more nor less then the old proven rule: "Divide and Conquer"..."

The referenced link is a good analysis article, almarst but I don't entirely agree with the conclusion. Here's why. The analysis concludes that all this posturing is to position the US to make an alliance with Russia "against" China. Hmmm. Let's see. What could be meant by "against"?

1) It could mean "against" some threat of Chinese military conquest...but the Chinese aren't acting the least bit aggressive in that way. Their army is well suited for home defense not foreign conquest. They do not have anything like the kind of military logistical aparatus it would take to support a foreign conquest. They probably couldn't even successfully invade Taiwan because they'd have to cross water (not to mention that they don't want to destroy all the high-tech industry that's there). So a Chinese threat of conquest seems an unlikely motive for a US/Russian alliance.

2) Could "against" mean against a Chinese strategic nuclear threat? That would be nonsense. The Chinese have only a few dozen ICBMs.

3) Could "against" mean against a Chinese economic threat? China is hardly an economic threat to anyone. Rather, they are a huge emerging market and potential production powerhouse. Not unlike Russia. No cause for a US/Russian alliance "against" there. That's an opportunity, not a threat. It's strongly in the interst of all to get the world-wide free market percolating. That's really the only way that world-wide living standards can improve, especially in Russia.

Can't really think of any others, can you almarst?

What I draw from that analyis piece is that an alliance "with" Russia is the important part; not an alliance "against" China. The US and Russia must learn to work together, hammer out differences where possible, agree to disagree where not...just learn to get along like any two good neighbors should. That's the kind of relationship that can engender the sort of trust that can lead to strategic nuclear disarmament. The US and China must do the same. Russia and China must do the same.

In my view, the thousands of strategic nuclear weapons that sit "at the ready" as we speak are by far the greatest man-made threat to humanity. Probably 99% of all those weapons are in the US and Russia. That's why I believe an alliance "with" Russia, not "against" China is the longer term US goal.

I'd really be delighted to see a trilateral agreement among the US, Russia

gisterme - 01:04pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4383 of 4466)

gisterme #4382 continued...

I'd really be delighted to see a trilateral agreement among the US, Russia and China to dismantle all strategic nuclear weapons. That's not likely to happen until both Russia and the US get their strategic arsenals down to a size that's on par with China's. Sometimes things just have to be done one step at a time

gisterme - 01:27pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4384 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...Indeed, why Zimbabwe or more precisely, Mugabe is chosen as the next Evil among all the other pirates parying on Congo? Should we assume they are more "democratic"?

Absolutely not almarst. Should a diplomat not call one piarte "a pirate" just because all the other pirates are not present?

Why such a rage on "totalitarian" Mugabe while overlooking the "democratic" Arabian Oil Kingdoms?

I'm not sure that Powell's comments would qualify as "a rage"; but I'll wager a guess to answer your question. Could the "rage" WRT Mugabe/Congo vs. "no rage" toward Arabin Oil Kingdoms be because of all the slaughter that has been going on in the Congo but not in those Arabian Oil Kingdoms? Did that possibility cross your mind, almarst or didn't you notice the difference? Of course you did. This isn't about ideology almarst; it's about trying to find ways to get people to stop killing each other. Is that so hard to understand?

Finally, almarst, do you think there is justification for condemning the US as a hypocrite because it has not intervened to try to end to the slaughter in the Congo? A simple "yes" or "no" will answer that question.

gisterme - 01:34pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4385 of 4466)

almarst wrote: "...Powell will have to pay dearly for selling his soul to Evil for his and his son's advancement..."

What evil is that almarst? This whole post looks like some of the "emotional cotton candy" postulated before...lots of emotion based on no substance.

(81 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense