Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe White House will do everything it can to push its reckless, European-based missile defense plan forward. Not only is there growing citizen opposition in the host countries to the proposed ten interceptor missiles in Poland and radar military base in the Czech Republic, but the system fuels a new arms race and militarism that is a far greater threat to our national security than any nuclear missile from Iran it would purportedly defend against.
As Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons told me last year, "President Bush is rushing to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist."
But even worse than this rush to deployment is the destabilizing impact it has on relations with Russia and the prospects for real security and peace. Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison--co-directors of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy--recently wrote in Foreign Policy In Focus, "When the Soviet Union first built a limited missile defense system in the late 1960s, the United States responded by building up a nuclear strike strategy to overwhelm the new technology. The cycle of nuclear one-upmanship was partially halted by the ABM Treaty, but then the Bush administration withdrew from the treaty in 2002. Now… history repeats itself, but the table has been turned. Today it is the United States building a limited missile defense system… and it is the Russians who say they need to target it to maintain the effectiveness of their deterrent. The Cold War may be over, but military and policy planners in both countries still think in Cold War terms."
Landy and Harrison also point out while opposition to the proposed US installations gathers strength within Poland and the Czech Republic, many in the US peace movement don't know about the European-based system, which costs over $1 billion annually, further erodes our international reputation and fuels a new Cold War. "This issue feeds into the mistrust of America that Europeans feel on a host of Bush Administration policies from global warming to Iraq," Cirincione says.
These are times, reminiscent of another Cold War era, when transnational, across-border-mobilization, activism and solidarity becomes so important. US peace groups should join with the grassroots opposition in Poland and Czech Republic--organizations like the No Bases Initiative (NBI) which has spearheaded Czech popular opposition to the installation of the US base--to take on this plan. As Landy and Harrison point out, "the Bush Administration hopes to override resistance in the Czech Republic and Poland and finalize agreements with both countries within the next few months."
It is essential, they write, "that activists on both sides of the Atlantic work to derail this agreement."
It is also important to call on presidential candidates and Congress to speak out – not only on the system's technological shortcomings which have been demonstrated through testing, but the fundamentally flawed approach of a militaristic, imperial foreign policy. Barack Obama supports the abolition of nuclear weapons (as do Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn) through a plan that accords with the Non-Proliferation Treaty's mandate that the nuclear powers reduce and abolish nuclear weapons. Obama has also been a leader in the Senate on nuclear non-proliferation issues. Hillary Clinton has not signaled her support for a nuclear-free world. And then, of course, there is John McCain. He's as militarist in orientation toward Russia and gung ho for the arms race as he is about staying in Iraq for 100 years. He said, "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place [in Poland and the Czech Republic]."
As the end of the Bush Administration nears – a reign defined by reckless subversion of bipartisan arms control agreements – The Nation, unlike too many in our media, is committed to stopping this escalating arms race and averting the danger of a new cold war between the US and Russia.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
This so-called missile defense is a pet project by two defense contractors who have been lobbying the president and Congress for years.
This is why we need to show these lobbyists the door, as they continue to circumvent the democratic process so that they can get richer at the expense of everyone else!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/26/2008 @ 1:49pm
This is why we need to show these lobbyists the door, as they continue to circumvent the democratic process so that they can get richer at the expense of everyone else!----Posted by METTEYYA 02/26/2008 @ 1:49pm
And how specifically would the 44th President do that? Charm?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 3:20pm
"Nor do you point out Katrina how Putin and Russia are sending Uranium to Iran to stress the issue further...."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 2:29pm
For their nuclear weapons program that they stopped in 2003?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 3:21pm
I have an alternative proposal: The Nation can take up a collection to send the whole LVLIBERTY1 clan to Poland with anti-missile shields manufactured by Wham-0. It will be a whole lot cheaper than the proposed missile shield, but just as effective.
Posted by nathanhale at 02/26/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 2:29pm
Putin's suggested "compromise" is merely a chess move to see how the US responds. Make no mistake: Putin and the Russians are not happy with the missile sheild idea. Don't be naive and think Bush and Putin will find a mutually satisfying resolution on this.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 4:10pm
It utterly amazes me that this obscenely expensive corporate welfare project was not laughed out of town after its umpteenth failure. The sad truth, which speaks to a fundamental flaw in our system, is that there is support for this type of corporate welfare among both parties, although it was on life support before Bush took office. It is an insult to intelligent people that this moronic farce continues, as it bleeds off money that could do so much more good. I sure hope that President Obama puts it out of its misery and starts to heal the deep wounds that Bush has inflicted on our country.
Posted by waters at 02/26/2008 @ 4:36pm
Why is it that no one focuses on the big problem?
This system is a colossal waste of money for two reasons.
1). It has never worked and has never passed a single even partially realistic test.
2). Even if it worked it is easy to defeat by overwhelming the 'defense' with an even cheaper offense...you just fire 10 conventional missles for every nuclear one. The conventional missles can be cheap solid fuel jobs that are either dummies or distribute chaff and jamming signals.
The technology is fundamentally flawed and Putin knows this. HE also knows that Bush and the administration are idiots because they do not have ANY cabinet level science advisors. Putin does.
Putin is using American foolishness as a weapon to extract the pound of flesh out of the USA so that we can have our ineffective white elephant on his border that he knows he can defeat anyway.
We do not have to rely on our enemies to attack us, we are handing our country over by our idiocy, linear thinking, and inability to adapt to changing times.
Posted by thuffman at 02/26/2008 @ 4:50pm
without an arms race how would the arms industry "make a killin"?
lol!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/26/2008 @ 6:15pm
Well, there's always that little ol' endless war in the middle east to fall back on, in case the arms race doesn't generate enough steam.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 6:19pm
Don't be naive and think Bush and Putin will find a mutually satisfying resolution on this.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/26/2008 @ 4:10pm
Bush and Putin, mutally satisfied... why'd I have to phrase it like that?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/26/2008 @ 6:20pm
I blame this whole thing on Lynden LaRouche. Star Wars was HIS idea, the Reaganites just stole it from him to dazzle the voters in 1984 (that ominously numbered year, when the last glimmer of hope for democracy in America died). I remember how the millionaire's mansions sprouted up like mushrooms in California as hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars poured into this boondoggle that in 25 years still has not met the minimum standard of deterrence.
Oh, well. The knuckledragging, mouthbreating contingent of the Republican party like LVLIBERTY will always gladly throw taxpayer money at any Rube Goldberg scheme as long as you stick a flag on it and call it "defense." Pavlovian. Utterly Pavlovian.
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 6:31pm
So let me get this straight: you stir up an arms race against a known and capable nuclear power with proven aggressive tendencies to offset the maybe-someday-might-could-possiblee threat by third-rate regional power that has never made any threats verbal or otherwise against the region (Western Europe) you profess to protect but who say they don't want your protection.
Do I have that right? Is that what's really going on here? Wow. Gotta hand it to LVLIBERTY & his proto-Cro-Magnon confreres-- perfect example of "logic and proportion . . . fallen sloppy-dead."
Posted by goyadad at 02/26/2008 @ 6:58pm
1. I trust Israeli intelligence more than our own and they disagree with the NIE----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm
So you trust FOREIGNERS...more than your own people?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 7:36pm
For their nuclear weapons program that they stopped in 2003?
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 3:21pm
I don't really believe it.
1. I trust Israeli intelligence more than our own and they disagree with the NIE
Given the history of the Iranian regime, it would be foolish to think they have suddenly become peaceful
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person
Since when did Isreali intelligence start producing good and reasoned intel on ANY country? Isreali intelligence is the most paranoid, warmongering Intel Agency in the world.
No one is saying that Iran is a peaceful nation, just that they have suspended, probably temporarily, their nuclear weapons program. Iran is a threat and worthy of very close scrutiny and continued diplomatic and international pressure...Not worth a new cold war or a missile system that doesn't work to begin with.
BTW- Is this why you trust Isreali intelligence? Isreali Spy Ring [commondreams.org] Isreali Spy Ring II [cnn.com]
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/26/2008 @ 8:54pm
Posted by BIZARRORIO 02/26/2008 @ 8:54pm
Egypt trailed alleged spy for years: transcript
If the interrogation transcript of accused spy Mohamed el-Attar is to be believed, Cairo's secret agents spied on the Egyptian-Canadian for years, photographing and tracking his movements – and marriages – across Canada as he tried to recruit Arabs into espionage for Israel's Mossad
MARK MACKINNON AND COLIN FREEZE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
February 15, 2007 at 2:00 AM EST
CAIRO AND TORONTO -- A man accused of being a spy told Egyptian interrogators that he recruited several new agents while living in Canada, targeting gays and those he knew were in financial trouble within Arab communities.
The alleged scheme was to find Canadians to help him spy for Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070215.wspymain15/B NStory/National
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 11:45pm
Joma, And why are they so worried if the system can't work?
Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 12:27am
The Czechs have been pushing for a NATO endorsement of the missile defense plan because they see it as a potential boost for the alliance. Alliance approval would also help the government ratify the treaty in the Czech Parliament.
Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 1:47pm
i bet there gonna get lots of dollaritos.
er, i mean treasury bonds..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 12:51am
"It'll Never Work" is just another knee-jerk mantra of the left when it comes to pretty much anything military.
Posted by pontificus at 02/27/2008 @ 04:59am
The consensus among scientists not working in the defense industry is that SDI is an absurd proposition. Easily overwhelmed by countermeasures, it has failed test after test, only to succeed in hitting a target with known coordinates and trajectory. Pushing this foolishness only leads to escalation, which not coincidentally, continues to further enrich the defense industry. On a technical level this project is millions of times more complicated than an Osprey, for example, and we all know the history of the Osprey. Continuing to accept cost plus contracts as a standard business practice defrauds taxpayers of billions of dollars each year. In Bush World, those whistleblower patriots who point out war profiteering are punished. Abandoning arms control treaties is a stunningly incompetent move, especially considering that developing missile defense was the reason for doing so.
Posted by waters at 02/27/2008 @ 09:20am
bush is just pushing this through to make prez obama look "soft on defense" when he nixes it,
and
milk the chinese credit card for his buddies as much as he can before said nixxing (please.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 09:29am
LVLIBERTY1 and KvH, please remind me again who's missles this proposed defence system is intended to intercept.
Posted by dustinchicago at 02/27/2008 @ 10:07am
nice use use of words MARKCANYON, instead of "impressed" I would have used "outspent". Popular theory is that the Cold War "ended" because the USSR economy collaped from "overspending" mostly on military budgets. Kinda like our situation now? I know this will be a blow to your ego, but maybe we "won" the Cold War not because we were "better" but because we were "richer".
Posted by dustinchicago at 02/27/2008 @ 10:12am
the US did not win the cold war. they just rebranded it to the "global war on terror", a three card monte scam if there ever was one.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 10:27am
the outspent part is a myth that refuses to die. Reagan outspent us right into the poor house.
did we win the war on communist China? are the Chinese or the Russians fort that matter defeated? of course not. the eastern Europeans liberated themselves.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 10:30am
"Glacier tagger gets frosty treatment" http://www.stuff.co.nz/4415314a10.html
hell, we've been getting that treatment all along.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 10:34am
Mr. Reckless, aka John McCain says the first thing he would do( as President), is make sure Poland and the Czech Republic sign the treaty with us for the new ABM system in their countries. This is a system that doesn't work and the people in those countries don't want it. And as this article points out, is a system to counter a threat that doesn't exist. If we conjur threats that don't exist in reality with a system that doesn't work, how can we expect do counter the real threat of unsecured nuclear weapons materials falling into terrorists hands. At times it boggles the mind that such lunacy is foisted upon us and we seem to take it in stride as normal.
Posted by dlefcourt at 02/27/2008 @ 12:11pm
""It'll Never Work" is just another knee-jerk mantra of the left when it comes to pretty much anything military."
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/27/2008 @ 04:59am
And you are no doubt prepared to provide me and my terrorist-enabling liberal friends with documentation confirming the efficacy of this system.
Right?
Posted by drhammer at 02/27/2008 @ 12:20pm
Posted by DLEFCOURT 02/27/2008 @ 12:11pm
It'll be signed WELL before McCain would be inaugurated....read the AP story that I posted.
It's a done deal.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:27pm
the kneejerk is on the other foot. they salute every harebrained scheme that comes from the repugs. we've had this missile thing for twenty years, and it still doesn't work.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 12:58pm
the kneejerk is on the other foot.----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 12:58pm
"Looks like the upper hand, is on the other foot!"--- President Thomas 'Tug' Benson ("Hot Shots: Part Deux")
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 1:37pm
Ciricione covered the basic issue. These missile defense system do not work and are a waste of money. They are more corporate welfare, and a major reason the Pentagon budget has gone through the roof.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/27/2008 @ 2:33pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 02/27/2008 @ 3:04pm
Now explain why YOUR SIDE in World War-II lost to the Allies?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:28pm
JOMAMMA- The Europeans won't be paying for this because
1. We don't WANT it.
2. We don't think it's necessary.
3. We think it's reckless/idiotic/paranoid/based on antiquated scenarios/illegal according to international law...
Oh, and then there's
4. It wouldn't do shit to protect us. Europe would not so much be covered by the shield - it would be the fallout zone. You must truly have the most warped definition of defense.
Posted by Deadra at 02/27/2008 @ 4:45pm
full disclosure, I HAVE.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 7:08pm
There are some valid arguments on both sides but there are only two key issues.....
The permission of the host countries, whic expect certain benefits, like entry into NATO...
The other key is that if actually needed, even if it takes 10 interceptors to knock down one nuclear missile, lots of lives would be saved. Furthermore, once the bases are set up, you can bet the intercepting technology will advance even faster!
Posted by Happy at 02/27/2008 @ 8:48pm
The permission of the host countries, whic expect certain benefits, like entry into NATO...
with troops in Afghanistan, this is a dubious benefit. NATO should be dissolved. the Europeans are better off with their own security pact sans the US.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 9:45pm
NATO should be dissolved. the Europeans are better off with their own security pact sans the US.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 9:45pm
IF Obama runs on that platform, he would be proposing REAL CHANGE! The Libertarian-conservative in me says, hell, yeah! But, then, reality bites......Europe will get themselves in a pickle somewhere down the line and Uncle Sam will once again, be begged to bleed for or with them. Best is for Europe to initiate kicking the US out....same in S. Korea.....we'll feign protests and smile all the way home.....swearing never to return.....Isolationism lives! That's how we cut down our military expenditures....now, is Obama ready to lay it out in that kind of clear terms?
Posted by Happy at 02/27/2008 @ 10:05pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Happy
this is entirely my opinion. I never suggested it to Obama, and I never suggested he should adopt this view.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 10:17pm
Nor do you point out Katrina how Putin and Russia are sending Uranium to Iran to stress the issue further or how Russia has been a key instigator in the current Serbian protests against the US and Europe over the declaration of independence by Kosovo. All designed by Putin and Russia to keep the stress levels high and promote Russia's goal of a new arms race.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 2:29pm
iran already mines its own:
In a televised speech, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced February 9 that Iran has started mining uranium near the city of Yazd and is developing the facilities necessary for a complete nuclear fuel cycle.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 01:54am
Given the history of the Iranian regime, it would be foolish to think they have suddenly become peaceful
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm
please tell me who iran has ever attacked.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 01:55am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 01:55am
please tell me who iran has ever attacked.
I believe that Iran is well-known as the most prolific financier of world-wide terrorism, especially against Israel. You've heard of terrorism up their in Canada, haven't you FROSTY?
Posted by pontificus at 02/28/2008 @ 04:01am
Oh, yes, and I know that despite the fact that the Pres of Iran has broadcast his intention to use nukes on Israel if he gets them, it's Ludicrous Article of Faith No. 89 on the Left that he was 'misquoted' in the worldwide media. Pardon me if I missed his subsequent clarification, you folks, I suppose, made it unnecessary.
Posted by pontificus at 02/28/2008 @ 04:05am
"and I know that despite the fact that the Pres of Iran has broadcast his intention to use nukes on Israel if he gets them,"-----Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/28/2008 @ 04:05am
Doing some research....what was the date of Ahmadinejad's speech where he said he would "use nukes on Israel"?
Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 10:28am
Katrina, there is absolutely no discussion of the perverse military budget and its skewing of the American economy either by the candidates nor the media. From the candidates, its understandable, but there is no excuse from the media. If not for The Nation and its subsidiaries, the US public would have no view at all about this albatross that hanging on the taxpayers neck.
We hear talk today about changing the mindset that got us into this mess, but no discussion of seeking redress of criminal activities against the Bush Administration and some of its contractors for pillaging, torture, formation of death squads, assassinations of journalists, no-bid buddy contracts, and crimes against humanity among so many other illegal activities. Nor do we hear about what will happen with citizen grievances with respect to abuse of office, failing to insure fiduciary responsibility by giving tax rebates and simultaneously borrowing money to pay the nation's bills, lying under oath to the public and to Congress, invasion of privacy, etc. Changing the mindset must mean insuring that everyone is accountable for his or her actions. Every 25 years since WWII, the conservatives and the political right in this country has robbed the national treasury without penalty. That needs to change, otherwise continued repetition will alter the Republic to the demise of democratic and liberal values. Hegel observed that:
"A coup d'état is sanctioned as it were in the opinion of the people if it is repeated. Thus, Napoleon was defeated twice and twice the Bourbons were driven out. Through repetition, what at the beginning seemed to be merely accidental and possible, becomes real and established."
That seems to be the plan and the timeline has decreased, since the S&L debacle, as the theft of public funds has escalated. Today, we can hear the S&L anti-strategy being raised in the debate as whether to assist homeowners caught in the vice of the sub-prime lending crisis. The word "bailout" is being used as profanity. It was OK to bail out Neil Bush, whose father chaired the so-called resolution committee--a conflict of interest that Republicans always ignore, and other so-called investors who siphoned out millions from publicly-insured financial institutions. Yet, it is not OK to help private citizens escape the throes of predatory lenders. That's called a bailout.
What we do hear ad nauseum is a lame duck -- the emphasis is on lame -- preparing to leave office and set up his library. The American people cannot let that happen or these events will, as Hegel suggests, keep repeating themselves until the public is truly brain-dead. What we do hear is the US Congress, led by Republicans, going after athletes for perjury to create smoke, but doing nothing to protect the public from right-wing tyranny.
Finally, this same mindset has put 1 in every 100 US citizens in prison, with a political right that would like to increase that if they could convince enough state governors of the need. There are four tiers of the US right-wing "good old boys" political structure financed directly by the American taxpayer: the military, the intelligence community, the criminal justice system, and the military industrial complex. Each tier shares personnel who migrate from one to the other for jobs. It should not be surprising, then, that Halliburton was building prisons in the US at the same time that it is being rewarded no-bid contracts in the Middle East and relocating its offices there. (What are these Emirates thinking?)
The only good thing about the new prisons is that they can be used to house the truly guilty and treasonous members of the current administration. However, that is not assured given the lack of oversight in some state voting facilities and the large number of absentee ballots that Americans submit. Yet, despite what happens at the polls in November, it will mean little unless the individuals with the negative mindset are brought to justice.
What we will hear, too, I suspect, is how we must "turn the page" and "look forward" or "let's focus on solutions, not the past." Democracy is not a natural thing among humans. Where democracy exists, many lives were lost and along with those deaths were the loss of genetic profiles that valued justice and high moral and ethical character. As Frederick Douglass once said: "A [person's] character always takes its hue, more or less, from the form and color of things about him [or her]." (1845)
Posted by afrothetics at 02/29/2008 @ 10:27am
Afrothetics is exactly right; when the Democrats take the Presidency and majorities in the House and Senate, the same mindset that did not want to impeach the most corrupt President and Vice President in our history because it might cause too much turmoil will prevail. We will hear, from the same party that let Ken Starr to spend 40 million on a witch hunt, that it is time to move on! If the systematic rape of our government, and the war profiteering by this administration are not brought to light our democracy will have been debased, the true legacy of George Bush. Only by exposing the width and breadth of this administrations corruption can we learn. There is little doubt that they knew people would not believe that such systemic corruption could happen. It is just as important to show how complicit the Republican controlled Congress was by completely abdicating oversight.
Posted by waters at 02/29/2008 @ 10:51pm
The bottom line on this is: are we really thinking of a missile attack from middle Asia? Or is it Russia we are aiming at? I would incline for the latter. I don't think Iran will be able in the near and middle future (say, at least next 15 years) to direct ICBM to the US. And certainly would not want to do it even if capable now because the retaliation would be such that their country would stop for 100 years.
Putin is right on his suspicions, it is a protection from Russia that we want. Why don't we make friends with them instead? Both sides know that a war between the two nuclear giants would be unthinkable. Nobody would do it unless a madman triggers some red button. Let's be reasonable and continue to find and account for all the nuclear arsenal out there, and reduce it, both of them. Else, Russia will find its way towards democracy. It is not easy after centuries of Zhars and Commies ruling, they tend to feel safe with a strong government. And they will transition slowly to first local democracies (municipalities), regional, and finally state. It will take time.
Posted by Frank42 at 03/01/2008 @ 04:42am
Putin is right on his suspicions, it is a protection from Russia that we want......a war between the two nuclear giants would be unthinkable. Nobody would do it unless a madman triggers some red button.....
Posted by FRANK42 03/01/2008 @ 04:42am
Putin has a right to be suspicious....but hardly needs to be alarmed that a handful of interceptor missiles w/unreliable targeting, will neutralize the thousands of warheads Russia have and with multiple trajectories to deliver them to the U.S. What he likely wants, is to share in the anti-missile technology somehow.
These very limited number of interceptors, seems to me, are to give us some chance, however small, to prevent massive casualties from exactly the scenario you seem to discount: "a madman triggers some red button".
It's obvious (to me anyway) that stationing a few interceptors at one or two locations won't do much in an all-out nuclear war, so.......think! Isn't this some kinda of `insurance' against some nutcase somewhere that gets control of a "red button" and, like a mall or school shooting, just wants to go out mushroom clouds rising??
Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 10:47am
If the Nation is so committed to stop the arms race it should not have endorsed the real war monger Obama who said, "Our relationship with Israel is sacrosanct". He also wants to bomb Pakistan.
Posted by nursevic at 03/01/2008 @ 12:56pm
I'm only 24, but unless my history is hazy (I was a history minor in college) didn't a lot of this missile shield-type stuff "Star Wars" or whatnot, during the Reagan years end up being a complete joke and disaster? Why is this garbage even being pursued by morons like Bush? I know he's a complete mentally-retarded chimp (that Website Smirking Chimp has it nailed down VERY accurately, at least in the title of the site) but can he and everyone around him seriously be that incredibly stupid? Him pursuing this is, in my humble opinion, almost as ignorant as his "tax-cuts as religion" mindset during his rule, trying to be all Reagan-esque in the whole Reagonomics and trickle-down garbage that was, like this whole concept, a pathetic failure.... I may be young, but apparently not nearly as stupid as he is.
Posted by molotov at 03/01/2008 @ 10:33pm
Happy,
I realize your very reasonable analyses and fears. Let's address them.
1) Only we have this elaborated "defense-mania", Russia does not. Russia probably feels that this will get the US an strategic advantage over them that is unfair; i.e. a short term detection capability that they don't have, i.e. a faster capacity of neutralization or even better of retaliation. (Of course we are 101% with the US, just put yourself on the other's point of view to understand their position).
2.- A handful of interceptors or radars is not the point. The fast response is the point. How do you know these won't immediately alert another wave of interceptors/radars in west Europe, Spain, the north of Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic Ocean like Iceland? Most probably they will. Our advantage will be time and since Russia does not have anything in Cuba now, that is our strategic edge.
3)The only way of stopping madmen from triggering a red button is to account for each gram of fissionated material out there and that is the shared responsibility of the whole world. If the arms are in possession of the government, only a mad 5-star Russian General in a state coup could do something like that. But I am sure that even then the secret codes and distribution of the responsibility within several people would make it highly unlikely.
4) Finally, it is our defense 'neurosis' that makes the others suspicious. They can't understand that the 1st power in the world with its great might is thinking these extra security steps. Instead of interpreting it as a defensive signal, they think it is in our plan to attack them some day and have this defense readily available for their response.
It is our responsibility instead to show signs of trust and cooperation. Now that promotes positive responses from other countries. Remember: fear-->distrust-->incommunication-->not really knowing the other nation--> more fear: neurosis and armamentism. And the rival sees these steps and responds the same.
My assesment of Russia is that they don't want ever to confront the US but they still want respect. It is when their nationalism gets hurt that they react stridently. Just imagine if our strategy was totally different, we could gain a most powerful ally for all our problems in the middle and far East instead of trying to do everything for ourselves.
Posted by Frank42 at 03/01/2008 @ 11:32pm
Posted by FRANK42 03/01/2008 @ 11:32pm
America Loves Peace? Odd, Since We're Always at War
By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted February 28, 2008.
We've been in conflict for about half the period between World War II and the present but consider ourselves a "peace-loving" nation.
Americans love to think that we're a peaceful people and that we fight wars only when we must.
Unfortunately, you can count in nanoseconds how long those assertions hold up when exposed to such insidious commie dirty tricks as the application of logic or the examination of empirical history.
Sure, any war can be spun as some necessity against some Very Bad Person, preferably of brown skin, slanted eyes and/or differing deity. Not only can any war be so spun, probably every war there ever was has been, at least since the days when governments had to start offering some justification or another for their little foreign adventures.
But pick your barometer -- any one will work -- and you'll quickly see who the militant folks on the planet really are. For America, it turns out -- gulp -- to be that bloated, frightened meth-addict staring back at us in the mirror, not some overseas evil emperor du jour.
For example, suppose you wanted to measure comparative national warlike tendencies by simply counting wars. Since World War II, the United States has messed around, in ways big and small, in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, Colombia, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan again, and Iraq again. No country in the world can begin to match this record in the last half-century. And I'm not even listing here the covert operations (almost everywhere), including the ones that toppled democratically elected governments (Iran, Guatemala, Chile, etc.), the long-term occupations of Latin American countries by the U.S. military, the gunboat diplomacy of the American Navy around the world, the aiding and abetting of other killers (Saddam invading Iran, for example, apartheid South Africa or the Israeli occupation of Palestine), the militarization of the oceans and of space, or the myriad other ways in which the United States leads the planet in aggressive tendencies. (For a whole century's worth of overseas fun -- not even counting the big stuff -- Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow is highly recommended reading.)
etc.,
http://www.alternet.org/audits/77827/?page=entire
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:14pm
Frosty,
I did not meant to assert "America Loves peace". My assertion is that: "America is in love with herself" (i.e. loves to think that her views are applicable around the world and immutable truths).
All that you saying out there is basically true. I only contend into this: the culprit is not only on ourselves but in the void of power in the world that America is obligated to fill out. The supranational efforts to solve world problems are still
Posted by Frank42 at 03/02/2008 @ 2:51pm
Frosty,
I did not meant to assert "America Loves peace". My assertion is that: "America is in love with herself" (i.e. loves to think that her views are applicable around the world and immutable truths).
All that you saying out there is basically true. I only contend into this: the culprit is not only on ourselves but in the void of power in the world that America is obligated to fill out. The supranational efforts to solve world problems are still
Posted by Frank42 at 03/02/2008 @ 2:51pm
...whoops! I submitted...continuing..
..in their infancy. It is common history in the world that the nations that hold the most power "solve the problems of the world" to what they think is appropriate which equates to own interests. And only when powers are balanced and there is international cooperation is that we get into much more fair (at least unbiased) solutions. The name of the game is MULTILATERALISM and that will not be possible unless America gives more chance and credibility (i.e. makes peers of her) many other countries.
Posted by Frank42 at 03/02/2008 @ 2:55pm
sorry dude,
i meant to imply nothing.
just thought you might like to read an interesting article kinda similar to the ideas you had expressed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by FRANK42 03/02/2008 @ 2:55pm
The supranational efforts to solve world problems are still
Posted by FRANK42 03/02/2008 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person
...whoops! I submitted...continuing..
..in their infancy.
unfortunately, it is greedy humans at the helm of multinational corporations (ooooh, them!)
that are "leading" the way in that area..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 3:44pm
The name of the game is MULTILATERALISM and that will not be possible unless America gives more chance and credibility (i.e. makes peers of her) many other countries.
Posted by FRANK42 03/02/2008 @ 2:55pm
i think the dollar dive is helping level the playing field.
try this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 3:46pm
" You saw an example of that "complete joke" two weeks ago when a US navy destroyer equipped with such radar and missiles, shot down an amok satellite on its way to crashing into earth." That is, a satellite with known trajectory moving substantially slower than any missile would, without the countermeasures that have been shown would easily overwhelm such a system. I'm rather sure that anyone stupid enough to wish the self annihilation of a missile strike against us would not have the courtesy to tell us the flight path of their missile ( s ). Unfortunately, this time around the joke may be on us, as this train wreck of a president has put us so deeply in the hole that we may be the ones who go belly up. I must have missed the press release telling us about the system that works so well. When confronted by the reality of a pathologically lying president and vice president, whose treasonous actions have enriched the defense industry a thousand fold ( at least )why should we believe fairy tales about SDI? In Bush world the illusion of safety comes at the expense of our children's future. Maybe Mark Canyon should put his money where his rhetoric is and volunteer to stand as a target as the incoming missiles are shot down by interceptors. That after all is the same as having us be the guinea pigs for a bloated defense contractor's wet dream. Would he care to tell us about the great success of the infinitely less complicated Osprey? Some humans learn from history, but are doomed to suffer under those who don't.
Posted by waters at 03/02/2008 @ 10:19pm
But didn't you know? There never was a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. For proof, see Richard Perle's article in today's WaPo, "The Arms Race Myth, Again". And Richard should know, since he and his pal Reagan were the instigators of the non-race.
Posted by jread_21205 at 03/03/2008 @ 1:54pm