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?

rcowan12 - 01:17pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8322 of 8332)

BUSH is a dangerously stupid man.We are entering yet another dismal era of arms racing thanks to his arrogant and simpleminded pursuits. U.S. citizens should be outgaged by his latest cynical nonsense with China and either get rid of the man and his visionless cronies or demand to have some say in what their president is doing and get their leaders moved to work for world peace and not for world war.....R.B.Cowan

ndpnyt - 01:41pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8323 of 8332)

The "US to abandon Opposition..." piece in today's NYT first appeared yesterday under another head. Here's my letter to editor re that switch.

Chutzpah, real chutzpah, is always unintentional. Even unconscious. Take, for example, the head of David E. Sanger's front page article in the early edition of Saturday's Times. "White House to Let China Build up its Nuclear Fleet."

Now that really is news. "The White House," mind you, not just "the United States." That means that President Bush himself has given his gracious assent to China to build more nuclear weapons. Imagine how grateful Jiang Zemin, China's president, must have been to hear that. Grateful but maybe a bit puzzled, too, since it probably never occurred to him before that he needed Mr. Bush's permission to build nukes. Or anything else for that matter.

But did Mr. Jiang ever see that head? Maybe not. It appeared only in early editions of the Times but was replaced by another one on or before the 12:45 PM update of the web edition. The head now reads "U.S. Abandons Opposition to Chinese Nuclear Buildup."

What happened? Why the new head? Did a Times editor suddenly realize that "White House Lets China..." might sound just a wee bit presumptuous? Or did the Times get a frantic phone call from the White House or State Department?

I don't expect the Times to answer my question. Nevertheless, a lot of readers must have spotted that hastily switched head and a lot of them must be wondering how come.

"White House Lets China..." is a most revealing slip. We expect such gaffes from the Bush WH but this isn't a WH slip. It's the N Times' slip, and it reflects the mainstream U.S. attitude toward China. An attitude we'd better get rid of in a hurry if we want to avoid trouble with it.

Back in Vietnam War days, Rob't McNamara worried about "a billion Chinese armed with nuclear weapons". It's well over a billion now but China still doesn't have many nukes. Not more than a few dozen on missiles, I believe. But that's not really what we have to worry about. What really ought to scare us is the fact that we can't scare them with our nukes.

Like it says in the Bible (Don't ask me where.), Chutzpah goeth before a fall.

rshowalter - 01:42pm Sep 2, 2001 EST (#8324 of 8332)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Outrage may not help. Or it can be entirely justified, but exist in a complex where there are thing to hope for, as well.

We can be more informed in our concerns, and if we are outraged, more thoughtfully outraged, by considering Clark's book and its review today, and some other important recent books and reviews.

WAGING MODERN WAR: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat. By Wesley K. Clark. . . . . . First Chapter: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/books/chapters/02-1stclark.html

Review: 'Waging Modern War': A Defeated Victor Reflects on Kosovo by Roger Cohen (September 2, 2001) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/books/review/02COHENTW.html

'Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century' by ROBERT S. McNAMARA and JAMES G. BLIGHT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/books/chapters/29-1stmcnam.html

"As we look back from the 21st century on the events of the 20th, we cannot help being struck by the enormity of the human carnage . . .

Review: 'Wilson's Ghost': An Anti-Machiavellian Handbook by JAMES CHACE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/books/review/29CHASET.html

"Robert S. McNamara and James G. Blight's new book embraces the Wilsonian notion that American foreign policy must be grounded on the bedrock of morality .... "

Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Does America Need a Foreign Policy by Henry Kissinger http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kissinger-01policy.html

Review: How to Run the World in Seven Chapters by Thomas L. Friedman http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/17/reviews/010617.17friedmt.html

MD5471 rshowalter 6/19/01 5:07pm

Patterns documented by almarst , again and again, and not by now subject to much dispute in essential ways, are acting against other ideals that Americans and their government stand for. In addition, we see technical decisions, on missile defense, grossly at variance with standards of careful mensuration and judgement that our government institutions know about and often practice in exemplary fashion.

Some things to be proud of, for sure. But other things to be less proud of.
MD7589 rshowalt 7/29/01 9:57pm

Looking at these things, it seems to me that the need for reframing becomes reinforced.

I made and optimistic statement in MD8303 rshowalter 9/1/01 5:55pm .. , and I'm working to back it up, but thinking carefully of these books as I try to do so. Clark's piece, it seems to me, shows the limitations of current military forces, as practical implements of policy. One need not be a pacifist to think that the question "whatever happened to the art of negotiation" -- is a good one.

We want the answer to be a realistic one. We want that realistic answer to be that "negotiation has gotten more sophisticated, more reliable, and stronger."

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense