----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: ABM Treaty (L3)
>
>
> John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
> > At 10:01 PM 8/29/01 -0700 Doug wrote:
> >
> >>>If the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Pakistan, India,
> >>>
> >>ancient history
> >>
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! (ROFLH!)
> >
> > Five years ago, right? (giggle)
> >
>
>
> Pakistan was about 5 years ago, India more than 25? In any
> case much too long to invoke as an extraordinary event that
> compels withdrawal.
>
>
Goodness Doug, you sound Baptist here. :-)
What I mean by that is your apparent view that an extraordinary event must
be singular in time. That's like the Baptist's view of being born again.
As a non-evangelical, I tend to see the possibility of extraordinary events
being spread out over a number of years.
The combination of
1) The end of the Cold War
2) Proliferation of nuclear weapons
3) The increased likelihood of a small power developing ICBM capability
sufficient to reach the US
seems to qualify as extraordinary to me. If, for example, we had the
capacity to develop a system that would clearly work in the next 4 years,
then it would seem reasonable to develop it. Especially, if it would not
give us first strike capacity with the Russians.
>
>
> The bottom line is that deterrence worked. Not only did it
> work to prevent nuclear war, it was instrumental in
> preventing any of the kinds of Global conflicts that
> occurred earlier in this century. And it forced us to carry
> on a dialog with the Soviets, the kind of thing we can
> choose not to do any more because our power has become so
> pervasive.
>
Well that did happen, but we were also very very lucky. IIRC, you are old
enough to recall the Cuban missile crisis. That was evaluated by JFK at the
time as a 50-50 chance of nuclear war. There were other times where the
risk was significantly above zero (significant as a few percent chance over
a 5 year period). While 50+ years without a true world war is a great plus,
I think that just beating the odds that favored a nuclear war is not a
ringing endorsement of the situation we found ourselves in. If we replayed
the last half of the 20th century 1000 times, there would probably be a
nuclear exchange > 600 times.
Part of the luck was personalities. The USSR backed down twice. The last
time it went "gently into that good night." I cannot think of many other
leaders of dictatorships that could be counted on to do that.
The dialog that we had with the USSR was usually in a language that I would
like to see become a dead language. They supported guerrilla insurrections,
we sent in the marines. The Cold War colored our thinking tremendously.
The best example of this involves our attitude towards Third World
governments. Back during the Cold War the decision tree seemed to be
Are they communist
If yes, then they are bad
If no, are they anti-communist?
If yes, they are good. If not, then they are so-so.
Now, human rights is a much more important consideration. I think it is no
accident that democracies in Latin America flourished much more after the
Cold War ended. Indeed, I'd argue that the US is engaged more in the world
than it was 20 years ago. At the very least, the quality of its engagement
in the Third World has improved...not because fighting the Cold War was
wrong, but because victory in the Cold War allows the US to focus on other
issues besides the Cold War.
I don't think we could have intervened in the Gulf War or the Balkans as we
did if the Cold War was still going. Indeed, the fears of Bush championing
the neoisolationist movement are fading as realities have hit Bush. He no
longer talks of us pulling our troops out of the Balkans, for example.
I also think that the proliferation of multinational corporations virtually
eliminates the possibility of the US withdrawing from the world. Every
company I have worked for, with the exception of one of my present clients,
has/had a strong international presence. The world economy is becoming so
intertwined, that the US has no chance to pull back.
>
> But of course the question is if we can make the technology
> feasible. There are a lot of smart people out there who
> believe that the technology required to fool even the most
> sophisticated ABM system can be developed easily, quickly
> and inexpensively.
>
This I agree with.>
> My question has to be why would the President want to rush
> to abrogate a long-standing treaty and possibly start a new
> cold war in order to deploy a system that doesn't really
> work yet and, according to many experts, never will have
> much of a chance of working very well.
I have one question about a new Cold War. With whom?
Dan M.
