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 - 08:56pm Sep 14, 2001 EST (#9062 of 9068)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

BIG CHANGES: The Weak at War With the Strong By RONALD STEEL http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/14STEE.html

" This is the end: the end of an era, the era of our invulnerability. . . . . . Our invulnerability lasted for more than 200 years. During that time we grew rich and powerful, protected by vast oceans and our great territorial expanse. We fought our wars abroad, subjecting our enemies — Germany, Japan, North Korea and North Vietnam — to devastation. But we were safely beyond the reach of retaliation. Our wars brought us pain, but our home front was virtually unscathed. . . . . . . .

" Because we have enjoyed our impregnability for such a long time, we came to take it for granted. Concerns about vulnerability never seriously entered our calculations of where, and when, and how we would intervene abroad to bring about objectives we deemed to be desirable. . . . . .

" We welcomed allies, but also acted alone. Even as modern technology shrunk the protection that geography once offered us, we sought invulnerability in more advanced technology. Today our leaders tell us that an aerial shield will deflect all enemy attacks aimed at our shores. . . . . It is a comforting thought, reinforced by our abiding faith in technology and our history of fighting wars on the soil of others. But all that has now been revealed as a fantasy.

. . . . .

" We call those who committed these acts "terrorists" because they operate outside the traditional rules of warfare. They operate this way because they are, virtually by definition, weak by traditional measurements of power and do not command the resources of a state to pursue their aims.

Comment: What if a state did operate like this, in some ways? With the same or more coordination, and more calibrated actions, including much smaller actions? What if many, or all states did so? Is that really impossible, or a worse state of affairs, a worse pattern of deterrance, than deterrance with nuclear weapons?

" This is a war that is showing — despite the proud claims of the globalizers — that in the end there may be no such thing as a universal civilization, of which we all too easily assumed we were the rightful leaders.

Comment: If so, it is showing something we should have known: that people live in different worlds, for reasons that can't be changed.

rshowalter - 08:57pm Sep 14, 2001 EST (#9063 of 9068)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

BIG CHANGES: A Generation Unfamiliar With Feeling Vulnerable by KAREN W. ARENSON http://www.nytimes.com/20001/09/14/nyregion/14GENE.html

" For American college students, a generation that grew up in a period of virtually unalloyed prosperity, for whom Vietnam is a history lesson and the cold war a dim childhood memory, the attacks on the World Trade Center were a sudden, stark discovery of their nation's vulnerability and the scope of anger in the world.

. . .

" Students on campuses far from the attack, like Princeton and Michigan, admitted feeling empty inside and scared. . . . . . . students yesterday were feeling far less innocent than they did a few days earlier.

" ""I used to think of America as invincible, a sphere of influence ready to challenge any global conflict," . . . . "But these past couple of days have put my life into perspective, and the emotional stability I once had is gone."

Comment: Americans are learning facts about their own vulnerability that others of the world have known for generations. This is a new, essential, kind of common ground.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense