[thechat] Didn't we already have a cold war?

[Joe Crawford]

Norman Bunn wrote:
> My point is that the issues are much more complex than we can express in a
> few lines of email or read in a newpaper article or two.  Sure it's fun to
> flame those in power and talk about choosing weapons over healthcare or
> education.  But without an adequate defense the rest is meaningless.  As to
> what is an adequate defense, I am unqualified to say, as I am sure most of
> us on this list are.  What I can do in a representative system of government
> is to let those elected know my views and to vote for those most likely to
> promote a balanced perspective.

Sure, but that argument also makes it easy to ignore anyone with
contrary ideas.

It's impossible to think about these issues, so ferget trying to
understand them.

Adequate defense is constituted based on what the percieved threats are,
and what would be necessary to counter them. 

The nature of nuclear war is catastrophic enough (see also: Nagasaki,
Hiroshima) that an *imperfect* defense is no defense at all. And the
greater threat, as pointed out, is in domestic and international
terrorism (see also: Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, okyo
Subway/Sarin - and countless other instances of terrorism with regards
to Northern Ireland, any number of Middle Eastern issues, etc.)

The dropping of 30 years of treaties wrt (Former)Soviet Union/Russia is
just plain dumb.

I think we all understand "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - and
(presumably) - threat of Nuclear Strike against the US by "Russia" had
been at a low order of probability.

Dropping those treaties appears to have *ahem* pissed off the Russians
to some degree, such that now we get to have some tensions with a
country we were hoping we might sheperd toward a more modern economy.
Instead, they are now going to deploy countering forces.

Additionally, it appears to have made them re-assess their friendliness
level with China.

And er... is that good? China is another Nuclear power, after all.

I reject the argument that we must lead it to our elected officials.

As a Citizen, I am honor bound (as I see it) to talk about these issues
with my fellow citizens (and a ha! with nationals of other nations via
this wondrous tool the internet!). Only by talking about it can we
learn. that's where I'm at.

It's not as interesting to me for what *personal reasons leaders do
things (clinton trying to deflect from domestic problems / bush trying
to appear presidential) -- I'm interested in the long term impact these
decisions have. As the son of a man who was in Vietnam and was also
called up to serve Reserve Military service during the Gulf War, as the
cousin of a man who has served in hot wars in Bosnia, and the grandson
of a man who served in World War II and Korea, I'd say I have special
perspective on the amazing effect governments and geopolitics can have
over our lives.

In that context, we *must*, even if we are imperfect in our discussion,
talk these things out to whatever degree we can, and not just leave it
to the elected officials.

Oh, and be sure to register to vote, if you have that right.

Those are my sentiments.

	Joe