Missile Defense

Wonderful reporting in the TIMES today -- and great stuff on the OpEd pages. Let me make some responses to these, while I prepare responses to gisterme that I want to be careful about, on the subject of the instability of nuclear controls, which I believe threaten the world. gisterme raised some other points that I want to be careful about, too.

rshowalter - 07:51am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5173 of 5175)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The lead editorial today Misrepresenting the ABM Treaty http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/opinion/15FRI1.html has this last line: "The Bush administration ought to stop demonizing the ABM treaty and start building on it."

The piece seems near-perfect to me, so far as it goes. It is interesting to ask

" "what would need to be done, in Russian and American terms -- to make the editorial board's "model of the situation" more fit to things as they are?"

- - - - -

The Un-Clinton and the Un-Yeltsin by STEPHEN SESTANOVICH http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/opinion/15SEST.html

is interesting, both for the US goals that all concerned would support, if only those goals could be made to work, and for a assumptions (especially about press freedom, and problems of press function in both Russia AND America) that seems too simple and one sided.

It is interesting to ask --

"what would need to be done, in Russian and American terms -- to make Setanovich's "model of the situation" more fit to things as they are?

If that were answered, both sides might make progress that eludes them now.

- - - - -

I liked the two letters under "Engaging with Russia. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/opinion/L15RUSS.html

Russia should try to be honest about, and try to fix as best she can, messes in Chechnya. America should be honest about, and try to fix, its messes, too. The arguments for doing so are strong, on both sides, but are unavoidably somewhat coupled. For reasons that we've discussed on this thread.

With reservations about the word "fully" -- it makes sense to say

" The United States cannot develop a fully cooperative relationship with Russia in international security matters until Russia cleans up the mess left by its "dirty war" in Chechnya."

It also makes sense to say that

" Russia cannot develop a fully cooperative relationship with the United States in international security matters until the United States cleans up the mess left by its conduct in the Cold War, and adresses concerns about extra-constitutional, closed, duplicitous arrangements used to conduct the Cold War -- arrangements which still seem to continue, that give Russians and others deep concerns about "dirty war" - both in the past and in the future."

Feiveson's letter points out massive facts, not to be forgotten. In objective ways that matter deeply, and threated world survival, the US and Russia are still configured as enemies.

" . . unless the United States and Russia are prepared to cut their nuclear arsenals drastically — really drastically — all of the president's scolding of the Europeans will be nothing more than hot air . . .

It is interesting to ask

" "what would need to be done, in Russian and American terms -- to make these cuts possible?

I think this thread has adressed many of the issues involved with that question.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense