myata

It may not have been clear to those who wrote these scriptures (obviously logic or compassion not among their strengths) that permanent (or greatly extended) harsh punishment serves no rehabilitation purpose. It simply becomes a part of the reality - and a sick reality at that. I'm not sure how many in this age would be still impressed by these sick visions. The way to go would be to change the doctrine and get rid of the entire concept. I think some Christian churches have done that but I'm not sure.

With plenty of time on his hands following retirement, Tony Blair should get a serious job in Iraq, to help clean up, or at least relieve, the mess he and his best buddy personally responsible for creating. That would be an honourable thing to do. I've a hunch he'll opt for making speeches about benefits of democracy from a safe distance though.

Read a story about a hell (much abridged storyline following in the tradition of Dante's, the new twist being tourists from Heaven on a tour of underworld). I wasn't sure till now if the hell is actually an official doctrine of the Catholic church, but according to this link (and countless other) it is. As I understand, it is also present in some other religions. So, what's the point of having a hell in your doctrine? I can think of these worthy reasons: 1) Intimidation of followers into following (for shortage of stronger argument?) 2) Exercising revenge (even if imaginary) on your enemy (i.e. not unlike wishing that neighbours loud stereo to burn to ashes in its electric fires) 3) Boosting one's self image by finding / pointing to someone obviously inferior (those sinners) 4) X thousand years old scripture that must be followed blindly without questioning or ... But the thing that struck me most, upon reflection, is that to be best of my very limited recollection of the story, hell was created by the god itself who gave to the supreme enemy the dominion over the place. Does that signify that god needs hell ? supports its existence (financially and / or morally)? turns a blind eye on its existence? / does nothing to help the poor souls suffering in it? And what lessons should the followers draw from this teaching? Maybe restraining their salvation efforts and letting sinners (and unbelievers) have their due would be more in line with the scripture? [Edited: Catholic is not the only church that still approves "hell" doctrine. ]

Because he can ... well in the line with Bushes general approach to world affairs.

With that "conflict" widely open to interpretation, I'm wondering if that is exactly what Senator McCain means.

This is not the question though. No matter what we think about others value systems, does it mean that all meaningful cooperation with them should be conditional on their accepting ours? How likely it is that this approach will be successful or more benefitial in the long run?

From the recent conference on security in the world (February this year), here's two comments that highlight two very different approaches to international security and cooperation in this time: #1 Republican Senator John McCain: "... must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies." #2 Russian President's Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov: "Until we get rid of unilateralism in international affairs, until we exclude the possibility of imposing one country's views on others, we will not have stability" So what is the way to go forward: make partnership (and on occasion, peace and security) in relations with us (West) conditional on accepting our "core values"? Or agree that in the multi polar world no one holds special right to the truth and the relationships should be build on the grounds of non interference and mutual benefit, regardless of possible conflicts between value systems?

Or then Nixon (or whoever) said let's go to Vietnam and teach them how to live? Several years later (and x thousands lives down) they had to go home play golf. By all indications it's heading in the same direction in Iraq too. Which way it'll go next time around? Keep your fingers crossed and pray for the better.

Sure looks nice on paper and presentations. Maybe, one day they'll buy you on using it just as they have with building it, at your expense. If the reality will live up to the plan after that is everybody's guess. Survivors (if any) will tell.

This review is written by a "22-year" veteran of NASA, not a single reference to any sources and in a tone highly apologetic to the US programme that makes it very reminiscent of US propaganda technics. In any case, the only relevant information (to the topic of this discussion) that I could find were references to the old Soviet times tests and experiments, and the AMD system deployed around Russian capital deep inside russion territory. Obviously a huge difference from the system being deployed thousands miles off the US mainland. Chinese test, already commented on earlier. No new information w.r.t. #1. #1 again, see above. Dated Feb. 2006 ie way after american system was announced, actually proves the point that players like India and China are concerned about US moves and won't sit doing nothing about it. Can't see anything relevant to the discussion in this one. Interesting but nothing to do with the topic (refers to a "theatre" i.e. tactical anti-aircraft / anti-missile system. Overall: not much. Everybody experimented with virtually anything in the times of cold war. Once it was over, a chance was given to start a new and open relations. Instead US has decided to withdraw from ABM and push its star wars (first) and then ABM agenda. US remains to be the only country seeking to deploy active ABM weapons outside of its territory . The stress is important because system deployed around Russian capital doesn't prevent a retaliation, and therefore does not interfere with the AMD doctrine, while the american system, potentially and eventually, could.

Didn't it like happen in response to US pushing its MD? As a signal that if they (US) continue, the others will start taking notes? To which US responded with a usual lecture on peace and democracy? Or maybe your logic works like: "I know that you'll hit me back if I hit you so I'll have to hit you before you hit me" kind of thing? To B-C: Same for the US professions on peace and democracy. They aren't worth the bytes they're carried in and only work on those who are fatally challenged in ability to put two and two together.

Now, is that best a Google can find for you? A renegade expert talking about something that was "capable of" destroying a satellite - while were actually live tests performed by both US and China more recently. Or maybe there's a difference between a research project in the unknown state of development vs deployment of live combat ready weapons? Or perhaps the project itself was triggered by US withdrawal from AMD treaty? No matter the talk, the fact remains: US is the only country on this planet pressing the missile defense agenda. The others will have no choice but to react in the fashion that they find feasible. There's high chance that this will lead to a new arms race in space. For which, if it actually happens, the US should take all blame.

Any evidence for that, so far? Both China and Russia are on the record stating that they aren't seeking such technology and don't want weapons in space. Who exactly do you have in mind with that "their own technology"?

Right. And if we won't find a way (and fast) to have the players locked up safely where they can play all they want - but away from any kind of a real world weapon, they'll yet see this planet blown up. It might very well be that this particular system at this particular time does not represent any seriour threat to anybody. But developing a technology untimately capable at diminishing the effect of AMD will have a huge effect on the balance of power in the world. It's complete naiviette to imagine that soothing words will make anybody ignore this threat. And the responsibility for the result would be solely with those who started it rolling.

Yeigh, yeigh, yeigh and a nuke is really nothing more but a very big bomb and an assault rifle just a modified musketon and it's simply a coincidence what these systems are appearing just in time that the new world powers are coming into play (e.g. India, China) that aren't immediately subservient to US interests. and they ain't any threat to anybody even if they line your borders and eventually grow in numbers and technical ability and the US won't ever think of threatening anybody with (or, God forbid, actually using) their own huge arsenal of nukes now that they consider themselves protected against retaliation. You've got to really believe what you're saying.

I don't believe you have anything more to contribute here, Scott. Therefore your last post was redundant.

Yes at this time the directive is to downplay the deterrent effect to just to pull it through. If and when it works, we'll use different tone. US with an anti-nuke umbrella will be a disaster for this world. Good thing that it won't happen. Bad that it'll probably cost zillions of wasted resources that could be used for better good. The fact of the matter remains that its the US alone that is pushing this agenda, both Russia and China said many times that they're ready to abide by AMD and don't want weapons in space. If it does trigger new arms race we'll know who to blame. No question about it.

You really need it laid out plain and simple, Scott. Huge nuke arsenal combined with perception of invincibility (whether real or imaginary) could create a very strong temptation to use that power for the best of humanity. To liberate us from all that stands between this miserable state and eternal bliss. By dropping a few nukes here and there. To me it looks like too much temptation. Definitely the recent actions of US administration have shown that they aren't up to the challenge. I.e couldn't and shouldn't be entrusted with such power.

Once US has developed a reliable interception technology, one'd have to be naive as Cinderella crossed with Winny the Pooh to believe that they won't use it against anybody they consider even remote threat. Re Manhattan project for an example. It has everything to do with Russia and the rest of the world who do not want to find themselves forever under the benevolent "influence" of the US. Your choice I'm just saying that it want last forever. And the environment in which the next power will come into play is of critical importance to everybody who lives (or will live) in this world. Whether it's disarmament and peaceful cooperation or forced arms race. ... See 24.

That may be the story for the public. Just like peace and democracy for going in Iraq. Not sure what the designers are thinking, but there's no doubt that generals and some politicians would see the ability to hang a threat of nuclear attack without having to bother about retaliation, as a dream come true. Once they set up a foothold they can grow both the numbers and capabilities behind the curtain - and who will ever know? In any case, negative consequences of starting a missile defence race by far outweigh any theoretical probability of a nuclear attack from a rogue state by a missile (as opposed to far more likely and easier conventional delivery strategy). As GH pointed out, US would have gained a lot more (probably in the order of magnitudes) if they genuinely invested into disarmament and creation of just international order system, when the historic opportunity came about (and I wouldn't necessarily assume that its their policies that caused it, but it's a topic for another discussion). Too bad they could not see it. They're still bent on the belief that they're divinely entitled to be this planets absolute military power. That belief is so common for the empires, and every single one has been eventually surpassed by somebody else. There's no reason to believe the outcome will be different this time around.

Do you mean, the whole system will be dismantled after the "bargaining" is done? Has it ever happened before? Or maybe, there was a case when people allowed themselves to be dominated without resistance? Threatened without seeking protection? No, for all I can see, it's the same old pointless cycle of arms race: one starts the ball rolling and everybody will get busy building their own missile shields. It is sad that one can see it and do almost nothing about it, except maybe one thing: keeping the score. We know who's starting this as we know who used the nukes against people. That knowledge cannot be erased, no altered.

Well, if and then it (interception rate that is) becomes non-paltry, who would want to face armed-to-the-teeth with nukes US, protected by its anti-missile umbrella? They've shown that they'll have no qualms using them (nukes) in dire (or maybe not so dire) need. No, Russia just looking after itself here. The only result of these US war games will be increased level of nuclear standoff in the world, with at least two missile shield systems facing each other. Sounds like a great cause to invest our limited resources into at this critical time.

Apologies. I seem to have overreacted to the PM (assuming it to be "personal"). /myata

Interesting. Just got a warning apparently for this innocent comment: "Welcome to Laytons dreamworld politics." If that's the sign of the times to come, I'm out a here. Seriously. Political forum without mentioning any politician's names (other than in a praise context?). (Notice that the comment is not about Layton himself, just his politics. But maybe it's a taboo too?)

Beats me (NDP logic that is). We want troops back now so we vote down the only possible motion that will bring them back in any measurable time. Welcome to Laytons dreamworld politics.