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?

midmoon - 09:56am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4832 of 4841)

Hellow every one! I've just come into this forum. I have a doubt why this forum confines the discussion theme to the strategic imbalance between Russia and U.S.

I think the NMD is not merely a matter just pertaining those two countries. It is the issue pertaining to many countries including China,North Korea,Iran,Iraq,Lybia,Paskitan and etc.

I think NMD is a device to keep world peace and it may be inevitable in that sense. The period that the world enjoyed peace between the WWI and the WWII just ended up with 20 years.

By contrast,thinking in the perspectives of world history, We are now enjoying world peace for more than half a centuty after the WWII.

What does this mean? This means that the nuclear weapon gives us the world peace on the basis of annihilating deatructive power of the weapon.

This seems to be a paradox.Yes,it is.But the paradox has nicely worked for more than five decades in this case.

As long as the super powers have nuclear weapons,any super power could not dare to provoke a war against another super power. In other words,the nuclear weapons totally have changed the channel of world history. The point here is not the nuclear weapon in itself but the U.S. is the first country ever have the weapon.

What has happened if the former communist U.S.S.R or Natzi Germany ever had the weapon in the first place? Of course,it also changed the current of the world history. However,the direction of the change might not be that one we see now.

After all,what matter are the sences of morality and ethics,the views about the world and the views about the history and the philosophy on the part of those who have nuclear weapons.

I think the nuclear weapon is something like a knife. It is the same as the nature of things that if a knife falls into the hand of a master of the swordmanship ,it functions as a tool of self defense but if it falls into a gangster's hand,it functions as a bloodshed lethal weapon.

As for the NMD,I would like suggest you realize the fact that it is not the system of the assailment but that of the defense.

As far as I know,U.S.defense strategy has based upon nuclear deterrence i.e. mutually assured destruction since 1960s. The major problem had been in the MAD strategy was that it will not be useful if the U.S.missiles are hit by U.S.S.R. missiles far before they can reach the U.S.S.R targets.

But U.S.S.R had started the construction of the anti-ballistic missile air defense setup early in 1960s. To cope this problem ,the U.S. had pushed forward ABM treaties with U.S.S.R.

Now many years have passed and many things have changed from that time.

The North Korea ,one of so called rouge countries, has succeeded in developing the long range missile which can directly strike U.S. continent while the china has been piling up the missiles.

One in a thousand, if a certain leader of a rouge country may launch a missile toward the U.S. continent by mistake or madness, the U.S. will retaliate it by the devastating vengence attacks,then the barely maintained peace of the world will not have anything but to be broken.

In my view, the U.S. is now worrying about this most of all other things.

In the past, the U.S. had just one counterpart ,the U.S.S.R.,in the problems as such. But now she has so many counterparts to deal with.

Well,What should the U.S. do?

Should it reinforce the nuclear assailment system?

I think NMD is not the best solution to the problem but I also think it could be a sort of the second best answer.

The best answer may be that the U.S. devotes herself to persuade the rouge nations to give up dangerous missile play and hopefully they are persuaded to stop the dirty play.

This will require a cosiderable amount of perseverence for the part of the U.S.

possumdag - 09:57am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4833 of 4841)
Possumdag@excite.com

Yale's Prof notes http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/listen.htm

that America is beginning to look to International Law for models; that Rice put out an unofficial press release before going to Europe noting that issues would be looked at in terms of 'POLICY' issues, rather than 'MORAL'issues - as per European viewpoint. Issues being -- Kyoto, Green house gas, genetically modified plant/foods etc..

possumdag - 10:03am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4834 of 4841)
Possumdag@excite.com

midmoon: climb aboard! The issues you mention are all 'somewhere' in the thread - take a look. The reason discussion is on Russia and America is because these guys have a pow-wow on Friday. What does midmoon think PresBush and PresPutin will be saying to each other ?

rshowalter - 10:15am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4835 of 4841)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Perhaps discussing "little league baseball?"

Maybe actually discussing steps toward peace and security, and justice.

Some discussions on this thread are a step toward this.

I'd say, especially -- that notions of "ignorant, amoral Russians" sometimes supported by the Republican right wing, and its many representatives in the Bush administration -- don't fit the very high level of conception, work, and moral concern almarst shows.

Controls on corporate power (controls on all forms of power) are important.

almarst-2001 - 10:18am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4836 of 4841)

midmoon 6/12/01 9:56am

You obviously exclude the possibility the US is the one to play a role of a "gangster".

Not everyone on this planet may agree. To put it politely.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense