New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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 Thursday.
(8822 previous messages)
rshow55
- 06:50pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (#
8823 of 8825)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
People are talking. Leaders of major nations are talking -
and staffs are interacting. And considering options. That's
hopeful.
Something I'm sure people are considering is a situation
where the United States is not deferred to as far as
trust is concerned.
If this were to happen (and the Bush administration has to
think of such possibilities) - a lot might follow. The things
that followed might not be bad, from the perspective of the
rest of the world, or from the perspective of the citizens of
the United States.
If other nations ceased to defer to the guidance and
judgement of the United States - and did their own work -
the following things might be real options:
NATO might cease to function as it now
exists - and the EU might organize itself to handle its own
security interests. It could surely do so - much of the key
US military hardware is close to being obsolete now - and
could easily become so. Key weapons systems are vulnerable
to advances in guidance, and are inherently vulnerable to
EMP weapons that are technically easy to build now, or soon.
It isn't a bit clear that the US can maintain a
technological lead on military technology that actually
matters. Or a lead large enough to amount to much. If the
United States no longer had bases in the European NATO
countries - that would provide real independence to those
countries - and require them to think about their defense
more carefully, as well.
The UN might find a way to function
without domination by the United States. That
wouldn't be hard to arrange, or to fund, if the will to do
so came into being. A "UN-1" could be organized, given
1/100th of the US defense budget - by simply reconstituting
the current UN without the United States. Such a "UN-1"
would have the same size budget the UN has now. If the rest
of the world cares desperately about having an
organization that fulfills its particular ideals of
international law ( and if the rest of the world could
define those ideals ) - the rest of the world might
plausibly be willing to come up with 3 billion dollars/ year
to fund that organization. Such an organization would have a
great deal of power to restrain "unreasonable" action from
the United States - a nation that depends on millions of
international contracts to function.
The US might be asked to leave many of its
bases, by many countries. It seems clear, for example - that
the Korean crisis could be well resolved - with real
disarmament on the peninsula - if departure of US
troops from Korea was part of the bargain, and if a
workable bargain was carefully negotiated by
responsible nations - including South Korea, China, Russia,
and perhaps Japan. If these other nations care enough
about working around the power of the United States - they
might do the work that this would take.
The United States, after more than a decade of not being
able to deal with Saddam Hussein, is saying "enough is
enough." Maybe other nations are right that "there are
a few more months to go before enough is enough." The
fight over this question, substantial as it is, - is still
only as big as it is.
The United States may be screwing some things up - and
spending more money than it should - and otherwise impure.
Other nations are impure, too.
The US is pushing for solutions - in a world that
could use some. And, it seems to me that, often enough - the
US is doing some listening.
almarst2002
- 10:03pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (#
8824 of 8825)
I totally agree that continuation of sunctions against Iraq
is both useless and immorally genocidal. It is a shame the
World allowed the US to maintain them for so long. The current
crisis may end those and become a very positive development.
However, very fiew people around the World and enough even
in US trully believe the Saddam or WMD are the reason for US
planned war. We are convinced its about OIL and strategic
influence in the ME.
Interestingly, the economic sunctions against Cuba are
still taboo in US political establishment. The same mantra of
"regime change" is still repeated for more then 30 years. Just
how many people around the World would believe the Cuba is
worst the Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China in all aspects of
humanity, civility and even democracy?
Additionally, I repeatedly pointed out to the deep internal
conflits of US policies. Abroad and even more importantly, at
home. The role of a sole self-appointed World-Wide policeman,
judge and executor will bring to the end not only the
international institutions and orders (however imperfect), but
treaten and severely damage the American Democratic
institutions at home. If the ORDER is the main goal, then the
DICTATORSHIP is the best answer. Looking at the evolution of
the American Patriot Act I & II and the fact that so
called "war against terror" is an open-ended one, the lost
seems to be ever INCREASING and PERMANENT. As an example, the
NYC already stopped the anti-war demonstration scheduled for
Feb 15 on the ground of ... treat of terrorism. The American
Citizens can already spend their lives behind bars for merely
being acused by a government as terrorists based on a secret
evidence.
One does not have to be a historian to recognise the
familiar road.
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|