"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 03:27 PM 3/3/01 -0800, Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> these are folk
>> who would like a missile defence if it was actually possible and
>> controlled by a government who would not use it to make a first
>> strike 'survivable'.
> This is hogwash.
that people worry about that? nope - people really do worry about
that.
> No missile defence system currently being considered
> would be able to withstand even a nuclear retaliation from China, let alone
> Russia.
that is certainly my impression - but our agreeing on the likely
efficacy of any near-term 'missile defence' doesn't keep people from
worrying that it is intended as part of a 'first-strike' strategy.
people's worries need to be respectfully addressed regardless of
whether they are factually based.
> At best, the missile defence system could handle one or two missles.
a fact which does not go in the 'let's build it' column. (what
'degree of probable efficacy', balanced against the set of 'risks of
taking other action', and balanced against the 'costs of building the
system' means that building the system is a good idea - and what
balances mean that building the system is a bad idea?)
>>> So, let's say that said despot lobs a nuclear weapon at
>>> Norfolk, VA.
>> Boo! Hiss! unsporting action by despot! (although bringing it in by
>> ship was a clever move - snuck right past that missile defence.)
> A ship is possible - but in many ways is much more problematic than an
> ICBM.
and in some ways less problematic....depending on the situation.
> With a ship, you need a loyal *and* suicidal crew.
or a crew with airline tickets.
> There are also
> are hundreds of mishaps that could strike and cause you to loose your
> nuclear weapon.
or to recall it almost right up until the last moment.
> Plus, there is the time frame aspect.
> Ships are darned slow.
i take it that you are not worried about a terrorist with patience
and the ability to plan ahead.
>> besides - i don't think that anyone who has any chance of getting
>> elected to the Presidency is going to wait {snip} before launching a
>> retaliatory strike.
> Considering the even John F. Kennedy (a "cowboy" in the White House if
> there ever was one) repeatedly stood down those who sought to escalate
> conflicts,
i don't recall Kennedy having to make a choice about what to do
after a US city was nuked. various US Presidents - including some i
disapprove of - have, sometimes to my surprise, avoided escalating
conflicts. however i think that an immediate declaration of war upon
the 'nuking party' would be followed by immediate, overwhelming,
devastating retaliation. and that it quite possibly would include a
nuclear warhead, accompanied by a speech using the phrase "an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
> I think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
would it help you listen to what i am saying if i said that about
you? would it help you respond in a calm and reasoned fashion? would
it make you feel like i respect you enough to listen to what you say?
> Any President would consider the fact that killing a couple million
> civilians in a country that we are not at war with would have no strategic
> objective and would likely make us an object of extreme ire worldwide.
i would like to think that is the case. however i do not think that
is the case. The US government is a lot better than a lot of
governments - one of the benefits of the rule of law and fairly free
elections - but it is far from perfect. i think that it is quite
possible that the president of a US that had just lost a city to a
nuclear explosion would - if the perpetrator was known - retaliate,
and quite possibly do so by nuking that country's capitol.
> Let's put it this way - *I*, a conservative, if President of the United
> States, would not retaliate with a nuclear weapon after losing a city to a
> nuclear weapon of a rogue state.
Good for you. i would be supporting that decision, and probably help
raise money for your defence in your impeachment trial. i remember
how people were after the Oklahoma City bombing....imagine the anger
if that had been the whole city.
>> the treatment of Iraq suggests otherwise.
> Undiscussed? Iraqi sanctions have only been the preeminent foreign policy
> debate in the US for the past week.
how much of the news is foreign policy news? how many people pay
attention to more than local news? how often is it in the foreign
policy news? how much of the Iraq news is about the damaging effects
of the sanctions (as opposed to 'the US is fighting an attempt to
weaken the sanctions')? i'll submit that the effects of the sanctions
are not widely discussed and that most of what little coverage there
is is about how they are an attempt to keep the evil Saddam down.
> Is there a reason that your <SHIFT> key works for proper nouns, but not the
> first letters of sentences?
yes, i want to appear as mild and unassertive as possible.
> There's a little problem with running a Marshall Plan for Iraq or Russia or
> Country X these days - that little matter of an unfriendly government and
> no occupying army.
gosh - i guess that mean we can't use force. i wonder how much of
the Marshall Plan depended on force? i seem to recall that a lot of
it was loans and technical assistance....
Iraq and Russia are entirely separate cases.
Iraq does have an actively hostile government, although that didn't
have to be unless the US wants to make a policy of not dealing with
repressive dictatorships/sing1e-party states. since it is hostile
there isn't a lot that can be done inside of Iraq - although
refraining from bombing it would help. lifting the sanctions (except
for the importation of actual weapons) would help. making good
relations with All of Iraq's neighbours would also go a long way
towards helping. in particular look very hard for ways that the
majority of Muslims can - in a truly Islamic fashion - accommodate
themselves to Modernity/that Modernity can be accommodated to them -
involve the people in the Middle-East in this. Micro-lending to the
poor in all the countries around Iraq. etc., etc. in other words -
invest in Iraq's neighbours, let Iraq see them grow strong in rough
proportion to their adoption of democracy/open markets and friendship
with the US (but not toadyism - if this is done right the number -
and volume - of Mullahs who speak in opposition to various aspects of
the West should be higher in the 'freer' countries).
Russia - the capitalism that they have adopted is the capitalism
that they have feared all their lives. they should have instead
adopted a capitalism designed with what they were raised to perceive
as 'the good traits of communism'. worker-owned companies for example
- a company that makes its own decisions along the same kinds of
'benefit the stockholders' approach that the Fortune 500 follow, but
to be part of the majority stockholders you have to be a worker, a
former worker (in good standing), inherited from a former worker, or
a resident of one of the communities in which the company is based.
and so on. unfortunately the nomanklatura decided to play
robber-baron (with the encouragement of some Westerners).
Country X....well, that is a challenge isn't it. but if we can help
Iraq and Russia we can probably eventually help Country X. i think.
> If you can figure out a way around this, then you are
> a more brilliant man than I.
<blush> not more brilliant, just more willing to try a different
approach.
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
