New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(463 previous messages)
- 05:28pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#464
Almarst raised some key points on this thread a year ago
yesterday - - I'm reposting them.
almarstel2001 - 11:07am Mar 12, 2001 EST (#949 of 950)
"Firstly thank you for reading and responding to my posts.
"Secondly, I am surelly not a Putin, nor would I wish to find
myself in his shoes today. He is facing enormous problems and
responcibilities hardly any American President ever faced since
American Civil War.
"The contradiction today, in my view at least, between status of
US as a predominant economic and military power and its histerical
military standing gives me a pouse to wonder. It raises in my view a
picture of a city dweller, armed to the teeth and locked in his
air-tight high raise appartment, fearful to wonder outside into the
wast wilderness surrounding the city, influenced by the Holliwood
horror movie about killer woolves. Sincerelly ready to kill ALL the
wolves and destroy the wild surrounding nature despite the fact that
on one killed by wolf human there are handreds of thousends of
woolves killed. Eventually, he reaches his goal just to die from a
Legionaries desiese by the fungus living in his air-condition
"But funny things apart, could it be some circles in the
military-industrial and secret service complex have played the role
of a Holliwood (even incorporating the Holliwood) to promote their
mercantile agenda? Where are the ssurances this is not the case?
"The danger is, US military at some point will have to justify
its existance and support by the "city dweller", leading it first to
invent, then to destroy the "wolf" and even its whole habitat if
that happend to be more "cost effective".
"The danger is, military and intelligence services, while
rightefully surrounded by secrecy, have to be scrutinised and opened
up enough to prevent the above scenario.
"There must be a major discussion today about the desired
geopolitical place and role of US, the moral and ideological
guidance and limits, it will be absolutly never cross. May be even
"Additionally, may be it will be usefull to create a competition
within military services, looking after each other and competing
after the same budget? The Germans for example had two distinct and
competing intelligent services. Even if not very cost-effective in a
short run, this approach may ultimatly save us. There is a great
importance of system of checks and ballances which served this
nation so well in many other respects, which are so terribly missing
in the military. I would argue the Congressional oversite failed
misarably in this respect since military-industrial complex provides
Jobs and influence, our politicians are so desperate to secure for
their respected constituencies.
- 05:29pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#465
almarstel2001 - 11:36am Mar 12, 2001 EST (#950 of 950)
Rogue states of America - http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,450238,00.html
Why Bush needs the bad guys
Leader , Monday March 12, 2001 The Guardian
"US presidents have always had a penchant for bogeymen. Such
personifications of evil make a complex world easier to explain to
American voters, and they provide moral underpinning for actions
subsequently taken in pursuit of US interests. Thus in recent years
Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, Libya's Colonel Gadafy, Panama's Manuel
Noriega, Haiti's Raoul Cedras and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic have
all been cast in the role of bad guy. Top of the current bogeyman
charts is the ever menacing Saddam Hussein, with a lifetime's
achievement award going to Cuba's Fidel Castro.
"During the Clinton presidency, the bogey concept broadened to
include entire countries, known as "rogue states'. Former secretary
of state Madeleine Albright, trying to be diplomatic, changed this
to "states of concern". But the rogues are back with a vengeance.
Twice in the past fortnight President George Bush has highlighted
the threat to the US posed by "rogue nations", thereby further
expanding the definition to embrace whole peoples and not just their
governments. To qualify for such pariah status, a nation must
actively support terrorism, be building nuclear or other weapons of
mass destruction, or be busy exporting the same to suspicious
customers. Top of Mr Bush's list are North Korea, Iran, Libya and,
of course, Iraq.
"Rogue nations, it is already clear, are the cornerstone of Mr
Bush's otherwise still unstable foreign and security edifice. On
their shifty shoulders rests the entire raison d' tre of national
missile defence (NMD). Dubya may have little or no idea what to do
about Ariel Sharon or Japan's economic crisis, but he is absolutely
certain of one thing: those missiles are essential to deter the
rogues. The distorting effect of this puerile thinking was on
display in Washington last week when, to secretary of state Colin
Powell's evident discomfiture, Mr Bush told South Korea's President
Kim Dae-jung he was ending the policy of engagement and negotiation
with the Pyongyang regime pursued by Bill Clinton.
" Even though Mr Kim, a key US ally, is desperate to advance
the dialogue begun at last year's historic summit with Kim Jong-il,
and even though the future of the deprived, half-starved northern
population depends on his success, Mr Bush said bluntly he did not
trust North Korea and effectively pulled the plug on détente.
Pyongyang now warns that it may be forced to resume building nukes
and missiles. To which Mr Bush and his hawkish advisers smilingly
reply: all the more reason to build NMD!
"There is a cynical pattern to be discerned here. While the
Clinton administration made tentative gestures towards Iran, Mr
Bush's people demonise Tehran as recipient and purveyor of
threatening weapons and policies. Iran's internal struggle between
reformers and the forces of clerical reaction is ignored; the
obvious need of embattled President Mohammad Khatami, facing
elections this June, to be able to demonstrate the benefits of his
guarded opening to the west goes unrecognised. An opportunity exists
to end Iran's isolation that may soon be lost. But what does Mr Bush
do? Instead of offering a hand, he cries "mad mullahs!" and demands
"There is another way, if Mr Bush would only look. Britain and
many EU countries are working hard to develop links with North
Korea, Iran and Libya. Most also now agree that endless, thoughtless
ostracism of the Iraqi nation is no longer a viable policy.
So why not stop posturing and start talking? Because Mr Bush
wants his missiles. And to get his missiles, the president needs
BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS - WHY MR. BUSH WANTS HIS
New York Times on the Web Forums