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 - 11:02am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5523 of 5537)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD5460 rshowalter 6/19/01 4:04pm .... quotes an article from China's flagship newspaper that makes a point that China herself needs to remember, and that Russia, the US, and other nations should, too. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200104/18/eng20010418_67992.html

" Daring to Shoulder Historical Responsibility: Way to Become Big Political Power"

_________

China sometimes violates the good advice in that article horribly, and not facing up to its past in an ugly case, in the situation set out in

WHEN LIES KILL: In China, the Right to Truth Meets Life and Death by ERIK ECKHOLM http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/weekinreview/17ECKH.html

" An AIDS epidemic in a rural Chinese province is only the latest example of the heavy costs of the controls on information and political choice."

A similar point, involving AIDS in Africa, and the need for truthfulness and hard work conveying and responding to the truth, is on the op-ed pages today. ..... A Time for Frankness on AIDS and Africa by PASCOAL MOCUMBI http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/20/opinion/20MOCU.html

Lies do kill, and they close off hope. MANY countries, including the US, and Russia, could improve both themselves and the world by coming up to the standard http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200104/18/eng20010418_67992.html sets. It seems to me that the most basic problems of military balances and peace, including missile defense, concern facing up to pasts that are distasteful.

To face these problem, it seems to me, we may sometimes need situations where determining core facts is morally forcing - and where umpires exist, fit to cases.

almarst-2001 - 11:04am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5524 of 5537)

rshowalter 6/20/01 10:24am

The "protection of owr country" was always used as an excuse for any intervention and agression in a modern history. If there ever was an eception (please show me one) - it would probably be just that - the exception.

The Americans frequently justify in public and steer the "patiotism" on their interventions by the notion of American exclusiveness to posess the truth and pretend to act in benevolent altruistic manner. I think even Kissinger's article clearly shows this to be false. The same pattern existed during the time of Cruseiders or Christian missioners used in fact as a bridgehead of colonization. Some Americans may believe in what their media, Holliwood and some leaders preach. So did some Cruseiders and missioners. So did many Germans listening to Hitler. So did many Russians and Chinese listening to their leaders. There was always need to justification and ideology to commit the most inhumain crimes. The more criminal it was - the purier and "humane" was the ideology.

The only valid war is in defence of the foreign agression. By the side which clearly can have no interest in such a war. The same logic as one would apply in the criminal court.

The first question to be raised is about the motives, interests, and potential gains. That's the key.

rshowalter - 11:06am Jun 20, 2001 EST (#5525 of 5537)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Very soon after gisterme joined this forum, she* asked a question that remaings a key one. It was this (I may not have the words right.)

" Why admit what all the world knows? "

The answer is that knowledge happens at various levels, and sometimes, for action, things need to become clear -- and no longer, "somehow, too weak."

. . .

. . .

. . .