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?

applez101 - 07:30pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8250 of 8256)

In all you mention, you failed to add China - and that is of key importance as this US administration fashions its China policy in a far less trusting manner.

rshowalter - 08:05pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8251 of 8256)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That was a big omission. Here's some better wording.

"We need arrangements where the US, Russia, China, the NATO nations, and all the other countries involved, too, are more secure , more emotionally comfortable , and richer after reframing relationships, and after readjustments, than they are now."

That kind of result may seem to be "classified out of existence" -- but that is, in large part, due to framings that are both too complicated and too rigid.

When the President of China met with NYT brass, not so long ago, it seems that the Chinese were looking for relationships that met the needs of all parties.

Maybe life can look up.

rshowalter - 08:12pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8252 of 8256)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Thought experiment.

If, right now, by some magic, every single treaty in the world were suddenly voided, what would happen?

It would be immediately clear that new treaties were needed. And that these treaties needed to be as trustworthy as possible, to order and simplify life enough for safety and function.

But, at the same time, starting "from a clean sheet of paper" -- maybe better treaties could be crafted -- and negotiated in more effective ways.

- - - - -

Condaleeza Rice and others who think (or seem to think) that we can do without contracts in international affairs are very wrong in the position they take.

But the "dead hand" of old procedures and patterns can be oppressive. I'm looking at an interesting document just now, partly written by Paul Wolfowitz, that illustrates that.

We need some better contracts and procedures. For good contracts, the assumptions made have to fit the facts. We're going to need contracts and procedures that acknowledge the EXISTENCE of distrust, and make allowances for it, in ways that work.

The fiction that we are either "allies" -- who never threaten each other -- - or else "enemies" - - with every conflict likely to escalate to a fight to the death -- is inefficient -- and is a logic that leads to, and maintains, the terror of nuclear weapons.

rshowalter - 08:14pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8253 of 8256)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We need incentives that work (and we have many of them, and know how to build more).

And we also need patterns of deterrance that work reasonably, and stably. (We have to LEARN how to do that -- and not get into surreal escalatory sequences, such as the one that built up the nightmare nuclear arsenals that could now so easily destroy the world.)

rshowalter - 09:12pm Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8254 of 8256)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

China is working to be find accomodations that are mutual - - that fully meet her needs, and ideally, fully meet other needs, as well.

Strategic Warmth by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/10/opinion/10FRIE.html ... MD7921 rshowalter 8/19/01 7:34pm ... Maybe people are getting a little saner, a little wiser.

Introducing the China Ruling Party by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/11/opinion/11FRIE.html .... MD7923 rshowalter 8/19/01 7:37pm

" That's why I believe Mr. Jiang's decision to invite in capitalists is historic, marking the end of the Chinese Communist Party and its rebirth as the China Ruling Party — a military-business alliance.

But "it takes two hands to clap."

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense