Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2001 04:56:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
796 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:GIywD1.6y3@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > With that logic, I'd expect you to next say that bulletproof vests on police
> > > officers invite criminals to shoot them.
> >
> > I don't think that's a fair extension. Bulletproof vests are
> > *not* sold as a guarantee of protection, rather as an added
> > margin of safety in given situations.
>
> Neither is our missle system guaranteed protection, from what I understand of
> it.
Yes, but the perception--which is based in our adulation over
technological can-do fixes, something the US has always had a
severe disposition toward indulging in--is what's important.
> > The problem with missile-defence is precisely that which James
> > and Dave pointed out: it creates a fiction that a nuclear war,
> > however limited, is winnable. The lack of any parity in the
> > rest of the world with regards to an effective--or even partially
> > so--ABM system is even worse, because it encourages calculations
> > of "reasonable" loss.
>
> Now, that's a good point. I'm definitely against nuclear war, but I'm also for
> protecting our soil. Tough issue though.
It's the question of which is more dangerous: The known deterrent,
or the unknown defence. It's hard for the figures on nuclear
attack to be massaged unless you have something to apply a
massaged value to. Remember the Patriot, and how we were sure
it would protect our young soldiers and Israel too? Raytheon
and the Army quite deliberately massaged those numbers (albeit
not for the same reason).
> > > It is imperative to our national security that we defend ourselves against
> > > attacks. Especially because the weapons of mass destruction are making their
> > > way into the hands of terrorists.
> >
> > What weapons are these? Ballistic missiles? Have you EVER heard
> > of a terrorist organization launching an intercontinental ballistic
> > missile?
>
> S'pose you're right. But I still stand by my first sentence :)
See above. Yes, it is imperative to national security to defend
ourselves against attacks--but the defence should really be in
line with the potential and nature of attack.
> > Nuclear terrorism won't come from above--it'll come from within,
> > and just when we foolishly believe we're safe. But also don't
> > *over*estimate the ruthlessness of terrorists--the sheer horror
> > of the nuclear nightmare is anathema to most of them.
>
> Why is that? I would think they'd be giddy at the thought of nuking one of our
> cities. And since the terrorist has no homeland to be retaliated against...
Not directly. But if a group should nuke a city, do you think
*any* legitimate government--or even most other terrorist organ-
izations--would have *anything* to do with them? Terrorism stays
afloat because there is a critical mass of people in positions of
power who are willing to deal with them. Nuke someone and you'll
lose most of those. You'd become a pariah among pariahs, using
a weapon that not even the most evil of your foes would use upon
you.[1] That's an important point--terrorists may not have a nation-
state power base, but they still have roots. The CIA's work is
primarily in *finding* those networks of support and striking at
them militarily, diplomatically, or economically (or a combination
of two or three).
The only "groups" with serious interest in fissile materials
are, if memory serves, small states with a beef against a neighbor.
Not for use, of course, but in order to make the diplomatic situa-
tion more "pliant." I hold firmly to the belief (which has more
and more documentary evidence all the time) that the atomic
bombs were dropped on Japan not primarily to end the war--we had
no more bombs, and no more would have been forthcoming for about
seven to nine months--but to "show off" for the USSR. Japan's
capitulation was the second bird killed with the stone. When
Macarthur wanted to use nukes on China during the Korean War,
Truman cashiered him. There was no reason to use them because
there was nothing to gain and everything to lose now that the
weapons were proven (and the Soviets had one or two themselves).
I'm interested in seeing how the latest round of Indo-Pak talks
go. This is the first *real* summit since the nuclear tests,
and they already sound a lot more promising just from the happy-
happy press statements.
> > All the
> > "Iron Eagle III" fantasies about bloodthirsty Muslim nuke-fiends
> > do is convince Americans that terrorists and the societies from
> > which they hail are somehow not worthy of the label "human."
>
> Haven't seen the third one of the series yet.
You're not missing much. It's not even worth a full price rental,
it's so over-the-top macho and "patriotic" that you'll wince, or
possibly laugh so hard that popcorn will come out of your nose,
which will hurt. Trust me on that one. :)
> While I of course think that
> they're worthy of being called 'human,' their terrorism is unquestionably
> inhumane. I fully support retaliations for terrorist acts against the US and
> against American citizens when there is a sufficient trail to 'whodunnit.'
Ditto. But again, to play devil's advocate: The terrorist feels
that their acts are analagous to the kind of evil violence perpe-
trated against them and their people. The difference is that they,
again, don't have a state with the pursuant infrastructure--often
precisely *because* similar things have been done to them, only under
the guise of "police actions" by a recognized nation-state. (Again,
remember that this is my explanation of the rationale, not a personal
defence of their actions. I definitely support retaliation--it is in
all senses a war, except that detecting the enemy is a lot harder.)
> Its unfortunate for the Muslim world that their small percentage of extermist
> groups give them a bad rap as a stereotype. It also baffles me that the
> extremist groups are so senseless and insane in their acts.
I rarely hear of a group terrorist act that's senseless. They
seem insane, but usually not. Horrific, yes. Indefensible,
certainly. But not at all senseless. If you get a chance,
and a few free weeks, pick up Alistair Horne's _A Savage War
of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962_--and you'll find that the tactics
we cringe at in Palestine today are not at all new. What's
more, they had the desired effect--which has encouraged their
continued use.
> What's the big deal with the US anyways? Is it because we're percieved as a
> 'Christian nation?'
Nope. If you want to look at it from what is, admittedly, a
generalized "Islamic Terrorist Perspective" (YMMV, etc etc).
When I say "Arab," I should probably more rightly say "Islamic
World," but that's a bit *too* broad. In short:
1) Israel. The United States is seen as the only reason Israel
continues to defy the world and, for the more extreme groups,
the only reason Israel still exists at all. Thus the acts
of Israel are, by proxy, the acts of the United States.
2) Oil. The US government aids its corporations in arm-twisting of
Arab nations for the only commodity they have that the West
seems to value: Oil. Oil holds out the possibility of giving
a real chance to Arab nations--the United Arab Emirates have
shown what can be done with truly careful and wise use of oil
income for desalinization plants, factories, schools, roads,
rail, those magnificent airports, commercial nexuses, telecom
hubs, and more. If the price of oil is allowed to rise, that's
a much greater share of world wealth that comes in to fund the
development. However, to maintain the present system of
inequality, the West operates in unison against OPEC nations,
seeking to drive wedges between them whenever possible. I'd
be surprised if OPEC can ever blindside the US and its allies
the way they did in the 1970s. Solidarity is just too deeply
compromised. The thinkers among the militant disaffected see
this and hold the United States responsible--our whining over
having to pay $2 a gallon for gasoline (less than desalinized
water, by the way), which is highly publicized, doesn't help
to dispel this impression.
3) History. This isn't about Israel, it's about US lies and
deceit. Time and time again, the United States spouts off
one set of standards and goals for the developed world and
another for the "Third world." This goes back to Versailles,
really, when Wilson allowed the Arab world to be carved up
among Europeans in the Mandate system, despite an Arab delegation
appearing at Versailles (they were refused admittance to the
talks over the future of their own lands) and their very public
embrace of the Fourteen Points. Ever since then the US has
been duplicitous, selfish, and plutocratic, caring not
whether Muslims live or die, only that *USians* remain rich
and free. You can see where this leads, right?
So no, it's not an anti-Christian thing. It's not even really an
anti-Jewish thing. It's an anti-"anti-Arab" thing, a response to
neo-colonialism by the West through its Israeli proxy.
Again, this isn't *my* personal reading, but a rationalization I've
read and heard many many times--too many not to think it's got
to be valid for at least some, if not most, of those who vilify
the United States out there. And yes, there *is* a fair amount
of truth to it (but not enough truth to justify random slaughter,
I maintain).
best
LFB
[1] This *may* be one of the reasons why Israel is unwilling to
confirm whether or not its experiments with South Africa in
the 1970s/1980s produced a working bomb. Most everyone is
sure they have it, but if they admit it, then it may become
"fair game" to use a dirty nuke against them. Hard to say,
given that there's no precedent whatsoever.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| First, Lindsay, I don't want to gush, but I really just love reading your stuff. Your only problem is that you're too sporadic. :-) Do you teach like this? Or does the nature of the college classroom require the lecture to be generally dry? Most (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| "Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:GIywD1.6y3@lugnet.com... (...) Neither is our missle system guaranteed protection, from what I understand of it. (...) Now, that's a good point. I'm definitely against nuclear war, but (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
