New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(7084 previous messages)
- 04:01pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7085
"On missile defense, the two leaders said, "Russia and China
stress the basic importance of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty,
which is a cornerstone of strategic stability and the basis for
reducing offensive weapons." Both countries "speak out for
maintaining the treaty in its current form."
"This last statement will complicate the strategy of the Bush
administration, which last week indicated it would seek to conclude
an agreement with Russia that would allow the United States to
conduct an aggressive program of testing missile defense
interceptors, even building new missile silos and radars in Alaska,
without treating these tests as a violation of the 1972 accord.
Comment: Formally agressive the proposals may be
-- but I hope that the physically minimal technical threat, due to
unchangeable inadequacies in the program that can be checked, will
be remembered as well.
"In a news conference that followed the signing of documents,
President Jiang addressed the strategic dimensions of today's
treaty, saying that stepped-up cooperation between Beijing and
Moscow would improve global stability.
"We believe that more active cooperation between our countries
in discussing missile defenses and disarmament will enhance our
efforts in building a multipolar world and establish a fair,
rational international order," the Chinese leader said.
"Mr. Putin agreed and he seemed to be positioning himself to
arrive at the summit meeting of the Group of Eight large industrial
nations in Genoa, Italy, later this week — where he will meet
President Bush for the second time — as the spokesman for a larger
constituency of countries disaffected with American leadership.
"We believe predictability in relations based on good
neighborliness and legal ties" between Russia and China "will
influence international affairs in a considerable and positive way,"
Mr. Putin said.
"Mr. Putin also more forcefully stated Russia's opposition to
NATO expansion, a new round of which is now scheduled to be
announced at a summit meeting in Prague in November 2002.
"Speaking in an interview to the Italian newspaper Corriere
della Sera, Mr. Putin said further NATO expansion to Russia's
borders would prolong the divisions of the cold war.
""The problem should be simple," he said. "In the West,
everyone says, `We don't want new divisions in Europe, we don't want
new Berlin Walls.' Good. We completely agree.
""But when NATO enlarges, division doesn't disappear, it
simply moves towards our borders," Mr. Putin said. He complained
that NATO in Europe was free to pursue the political objectives of
the Western Alliance even when there was no agreement in the United
Nations Security Council for action.
""The divisions will continue until there is a single security
area in Europe," Mr. Putin told the Milan-based newspaper, and he
suggested that just as the Warsaw Pact had been disbanded, NATO
could also be disbanded in favor of a broader security structure,
presumably one that included Russia. "But that is not even taken
into consideration," he said.
. Thomas Frieman's comments in Who's
Crazy Here? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/opinion/15FRIE.html
. . . . and A Memo From Osama http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
"In addition to the strategic dimension of the treaty, Russia
and China formally agreed to further reduce military forces in
border regions, fight terrorism and drug trafficking, work to
resolve the final disputes along their 2,550 miles frontier and
prevent "groups,"" or third countries, from using the territory of
one country as a base against the other. They also agreed not to aim
their strategic nuclear weapons at each other and work to solve any
"Mr. Jiang will make a visit to World War II memorials in
Volgograd, the site of the decisive Battle of Stalingrad, and then
travel to Belarus, Moldova and Malt
- 04:03pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7086
It will be harder and harder for the United States to maintain a
unilateralist "my way or the highway" stance in international
affairs. But the world also seems to be becoming more stable
, with fewer conflicts, and fewer reasons for military responses
from the United States. The reasons to get rid of nuclear risks are
getting greater, and the means to rid the world of those risks seem
to be developing, too.
Good to have you here, gisterme.
- 04:09pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7087
7/16/01 3:56pm -- "maybe the sky isn't falling after all " ---
Doesn't look like it is falling to me, either.
There's a line I like from H.L. Menken about politicians, it goes
something like this -- Menken speaks of
"Frauds and idiots . . . or smart boys, disguised
as idiots to win the public confidence "
Could it be that the Bush administration is playing a deep,
deep game, and playing it well?
You can make the case that they are doing everything they
possibly can, -- to get the world organized for real peace and real
disarmament - - by acting like "jerks."
Maybe it is absolutely the best that the administration can do.
But a more decorous approach might be found, if you thought hard,
Am I being unfair?
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
See the quick-edit
help for more information.