Date: Mon, 5 Apr 99 10:10:06 EDT
From: "Brian J. Callahan" <Brian=J.=Callahan%MT%DFCI-AT-EYE.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: re: NATO is boxed in...


Carp writes:                                          
>Russia would, but China?  Wow, brine-oh, you're taking us back to the 
>1950s when we had twin monoliths for enemies.  China won't go the way of 
>Russia. China has a Big Stake in the U$ etal getting sucked into a big 
>committment elsewhere.  China has a Bigger Stake in letting the Rooskies 
>get sucked into a big committment elsewhere.  China and Russia share Asia 
>but neither wants to.  Go figure.  Plus, you're arguing that a non-aligned 
>wirld is the preferred outcome but you're creating an alignment out of the 
>sino-soviet states.
Nope, I'm describing the world as it seems to be--realpolitik, remember?  If 
you really think these large nuclear powers are not a threat to the (hostage) 
US/NATO populations, I want some of those beta blockers.  Zhironovsky and his 
Chinese equivalent could gain power at any time, and perceived threats to 
security are exactly what fuel the ultra-nationalists.  And I don't care how 
poorly Russia's military looks right now;  I live near (in the nuclear weapon 
sense) MIT, Harvard, hundreds of high tech firms, and several General 
Electric plants ("we bring good things to death"); so if even 1 in 10 of the 
Russian nukes works actually work, I'm still a roasted Irish potato.  

>
>NATO is expanding without Kosavar.  They just picked up three new players
>and they're getting ready for three more.  Nobody is panicking in Russia
>or China over this.  Adding a vacant piece of land called Kosavar doesn't
>even compare to adding eastern europe to NATO.

I think the crucial differences is expansion through alliance versus 
expansion through military action and occupation.  The former is Viewed With 
Alarm by many in Russia, the latter scares and angers most Russians as well 
as the Chinese leadership.  The Chinese, I think, are particularly worried by 
the rationale used to justify NATO intervention.  The same rationale could be 
used to "help" the Tibetans and all the other ethnic/religious minorities in 
the very large China.  Same with Chechnya and other troublesome regions of 
Russia.  The only thing preventing this, they assume, is relative strength.  
That's not going to make any state feel more peaceful.

>> Expansion and war also help to divert the population from keeping an eye 
>>on 
>> their most immediate enemies, State and Capital.  

>So does Prime time TV.  I know it hirts your wob heart to hear it, but few
>people are ever going to recognize the state and capital as their enemy as
>long as hip-hop and eMpTyVee are occupying their minds.  

That's why we need to be ready to pass out "Conquest of Bread" on 1/1/2000, 
The Day That Cable Died.   Myself, I'll probably be going through withdrawal, 
maybe watching "Matewan" on my Y2K compliant VCR until I run out of fuel for 
the generator.  Hopefully the Revolution will have been completed by then by 
hardier souls.