|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
Self survival of the state? Do you anticipate that the nation-state as we understand it now will be a constant feature for the rest of human history?
And your alternative is? Speak of the now, the real. Theories will change depending on circumstance. To try to predict the now based on some vacuous idea of what is to come in terms of some overarching human governance paradigm is once again pointless.
|
On April 03 2012 14:57 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
Self survival of the state? Do you anticipate that the nation-state as we understand it now will be a constant feature for the rest of human history? And your alternative is? Speak of the now, the real. Theories will change depending on circumstance. To try to predict the now based on some vacuous idea of what is to come in terms of some overarching human governance paradigm is once again pointless.
Hmm.. perhaps not "pointless." But you have a point in that it may for these reasons be beyond the scope of the field of "International Relations" as a discipline.
Would not a good statesman, though, if he found himself in times of change, attempt to come to terms with that change and be forced to, if it came to that, alter the nature of the state for its own good?
edit: or can international relations by definition not study revolution?
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 15:00 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:57 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
Self survival of the state? Do you anticipate that the nation-state as we understand it now will be a constant feature for the rest of human history? And your alternative is? Speak of the now, the real. Theories will change depending on circumstance. To try to predict the now based on some vacuous idea of what is to come in terms of some overarching human governance paradigm is once again pointless. Hmm.. perhaps not "pointless." But you have a point in that it may for these reasons be beyond the scope of the field of "International Relations" as a discipline. Would not a good statesman, though, if he found himself in times of change, attempt to come to terms with that change and be forced to, if it came to that, alter the nature of the state for its own good?
A good statesman, regardless of situation, will act in terms of his fulfilling his or her country's self interests.
|
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate?
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate?
No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that.
|
On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that.
Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices?
I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy?
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy?
I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature.
Getting back on topic, on the level of states and inter-state relations, the only way to manage how States act is through the accumulation and projection of power on peers in order to get things done or to influence behavior.
|
On April 03 2012 15:10 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy? I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature.
These things did not exist before us; we created them. How can we then speak of their nature? Their "nature" is the dominant strategic attractor within a rule set that WE create. We can alter the dominant strategies by changing the rules of the game (you will note that the rules of the game are often changed, e.g by technological or political innovation). This is what nation states do when they sign international treaties.
A treaty is therefore an agreement on what the rules of the game should be. The states agree on what rule set would produce the strategic attractor that would be optimal (I understand, negotiated) for both parties. Why should we dismiss out of hand the idea that there might be a rule set which produced so optimal a strategic attractor that everybody would agree to it (this would of course be a very difficult engineering problem - I'm asking only if a solution might exist, not whether we could calculate it)?
edit: that's not a very elegant way to put it, I hope you understand. Sorry
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:10 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy? I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature. These things did not exist before us; we created them. How can we then speak of their nature? Their "nature" is the dominant strategic attractor within a rule set that WE create. We can alter the dominant strategies by changing the rules of the game. This is what nation states do when they sign international treaties. A treaty is therefore an agreement on what the rules of the game should be. The states agree on what rule set would produce the strategic attractor that would be optimal (I understand, negotiated) for both parties. Why should we dismiss out of hand the idea that there might be a rule set which produced so optimal a strategic attractor that everybody would agree to it (this would of course be a very difficult engineering problem - I'm asking only if a solution might exist, not whether we could calculate it)?
There is no overarching supranational governance structure which governs relations between states, especially great powers. Treaties only have force if, when broken, countries are willing to go to war in order to enforce them. International organizations only have legitimacy if important states say they do.
|
On April 03 2012 15:20 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:10 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy? I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature. These things did not exist before us; we created them. How can we then speak of their nature? Their "nature" is the dominant strategic attractor within a rule set that WE create. We can alter the dominant strategies by changing the rules of the game. This is what nation states do when they sign international treaties. A treaty is therefore an agreement on what the rules of the game should be. The states agree on what rule set would produce the strategic attractor that would be optimal (I understand, negotiated) for both parties. Why should we dismiss out of hand the idea that there might be a rule set which produced so optimal a strategic attractor that everybody would agree to it (this would of course be a very difficult engineering problem - I'm asking only if a solution might exist, not whether we could calculate it)? There is no overarching supranational governance structure which governs relations between states, especially great powers. Treaties only have force if, when broken, countries are willing to go to war in order to enforce them. International organizations only have legitimacy if important states say they do.
Might it be a good idea to create one?
We will probably need it, to deal with things like global climatic disruption.
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 15:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:20 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:10 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy? I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature. These things did not exist before us; we created them. How can we then speak of their nature? Their "nature" is the dominant strategic attractor within a rule set that WE create. We can alter the dominant strategies by changing the rules of the game. This is what nation states do when they sign international treaties. A treaty is therefore an agreement on what the rules of the game should be. The states agree on what rule set would produce the strategic attractor that would be optimal (I understand, negotiated) for both parties. Why should we dismiss out of hand the idea that there might be a rule set which produced so optimal a strategic attractor that everybody would agree to it (this would of course be a very difficult engineering problem - I'm asking only if a solution might exist, not whether we could calculate it)? There is no overarching supranational governance structure which governs relations between states, especially great powers. Treaties only have force if, when broken, countries are willing to go to war in order to enforce them. International organizations only have legitimacy if important states say they do. Might it be a good idea to create one? We will probably need it, to deal with things like global climatic disruption.
Good luck. Like I said earlier, speak of the now. It will be very hard to convince the current set of great powers to give up their positions specifically because they are, like all other states, security-maximizing.
To focus on your example on-point. Why would developing states such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China allow external agents to dictate to them what they can and can't produce? These states suddenly don't deserve the same or better level of development currently enjoyed by other states in the world? They won't, and they don't, because their continued economic progress is a key component to their power. This is why international compacts on climate change fail and have no teeth.
|
Yes, perhaps it is best that my field is not international relations.
I think there will be major technological changes, along with other disruption caused by climate change e.g., or changes in world culture due to information technology, which may well force the hands of the great powers or even cause them to crumble from within.
edit: I like your maxim, "speak of the now." It is a good reminder.
|
I am currently in a global studies class that is taking a look at nuclear proliferation and upon entering it, I to had the thought that if more countries were given nuclear weapons then the world would be a better place. But that simply just isn't the case, while having a system where some countries seem to be allowed to stock pile these dangerous weapons, the idea of every single leader having a weapon that can kill millions with the touch of a button just seems way to fucked up. Think if Hilter had a nuke, or how about when smaller countries are beginning to feel the pressure from larger states wanting certain policies passed on a global scale. How about corrupt leaders wanting to make an extra buck and deicde to sell one to a group looking to have revenage against another country.
Sorry I didn't put a lot of time into my post (currently writing a social policy paper on health care), but there are just to many variables where the chance of millions being hurt from the actions of one man is just to easy to foresee. While having this two tiered system that we currently have seems to be unfair, it is the only realistic way to have at the moment to deal with it.
|
|
|
You should explain what your links are. People aren't going to read anything without a reason to.
|
Having more nuclear weapons is a terrible idea. Sure, it may prevent war for a while, a long while perhaps, but eventually something will happen that will tip the scales and nuclear war will occur. We'd be far better off getting rid of as many nuclear weapons as possible and sticking to conventional warfare, as bad as it is. At least the entire population of Earth wouldn't be inevitably destroyed.
|
This subject matter is far too serious for such a OPB. Complexity after complexity.
1.) Depleted Uranium tank shells/Iraq
2.) The spread of nuclear weapons by the nations who sign against(NPT) the spread. US to Isreal.. Isreal to South Africa ect.
3.) Fear of jihadist dirty bombs, or non-state actors is a healthy fear, but so is a scenario such as Edge of Darnkess. Just a movie, but Hollywood tends to get it right every once in a while.
4.) Thatcher wanted to nuke Argentina, to save British ships according to the quite a few sources. Nobility, Patriotism, or Cowardice? Sanorum with nukes...Yikes. I could trust Obama(which I don't) to do the right thing with the Sword of Omens... doesn't mean I trust Jeb Bush with anything more than a squirt gun and pez dispenser.
Perhaps add a Pro/Con section to the OP, or just some pictures of Ghost nukes to brighten up the place 
|
On April 03 2012 15:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 15:20 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:10 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:05 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 15:04 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 15:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Would you agree that the definition of "self-interest" might be up for some debate? No, it isn't. Unless you believe that human beings are inherently peaceful, purely without greed, and completely altruistic. I will refer to the course of human history as evidence against that. Sorry, can you elaborate on why those are the only two choices? I.e., why is it nation states xor anarchy? I'm not saying it is order versus anarchy. I am saying that even in our definition of 'order' states and individuals operate on an anarchical basis with interest maximization at the forefront because that is their nature. These things did not exist before us; we created them. How can we then speak of their nature? Their "nature" is the dominant strategic attractor within a rule set that WE create. We can alter the dominant strategies by changing the rules of the game. This is what nation states do when they sign international treaties. A treaty is therefore an agreement on what the rules of the game should be. The states agree on what rule set would produce the strategic attractor that would be optimal (I understand, negotiated) for both parties. Why should we dismiss out of hand the idea that there might be a rule set which produced so optimal a strategic attractor that everybody would agree to it (this would of course be a very difficult engineering problem - I'm asking only if a solution might exist, not whether we could calculate it)? There is no overarching supranational governance structure which governs relations between states, especially great powers. Treaties only have force if, when broken, countries are willing to go to war in order to enforce them. International organizations only have legitimacy if important states say they do. Might it be a good idea to create one? We will probably need it, to deal with things like global climatic disruption.
"War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free...We must realize that war is universal, and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife...the mixture when not stirred, putrifies" - Heraclitus, 500 BC.
What you call world government I see as a totalitarian empire, and an end to sovereignty and agency. :/
|
On April 04 2012 01:45 Half wrote:
What you call world government I see as a totalitarian empire, and an end to sovereignty and agency. :/
It's facile to consider the two things necessarily equivalent.
I think any possible world government would have to be concerned FIRST AND FOREMOST with the liberty of its citizens.
In fact, this I think is the precondition of such a government.
You think you are free now, but you are not. You have no voice, no political power. You are ruled entirely by capital. You are ruled by people you do not choose (because the only choice is between 1 reasonable candidate and 1 complete idiot, which is not a choice), and you are being taxed without representation. What was that you were saying again about totalitarianism?
edit: oh god the idea of margaret thatcher with nukes... need to drink myself into a stupor just to forget about that. bottoms up
|
On April 04 2012 00:10 EternaLLegacy wrote:You should explain what your links are. People aren't going to read anything without a reason to.
Sorry.
1st link refers to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and all the sub agreements that go along with it. That's basically how the international community sees nuclear weapons: while it's an arguable fact whether nuclear weapons are illegal per se (my opinion is, they are not), customary international law dictates at the very least a level of discontent with the current number of nuclear weapons. Thus that treaty.
2nd link refers to the landmark case of (Australia v. France), on the Legality and Threat of the Use of Nuclear Weapons. This was a case that sprung from France's nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific (?) Ocean, wherein the nuclear degradation and radiation affected certain Australian nationals. Anyway, the issue was less the nuclear weapons and more of jurisdiction and the binding force of statements made by heads of state - still, there was a statement made re: weapons.
3rd link refers to the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols. They embody the rules the international community follows in the conduct of hostilities. It's my personal specialty, and it's quite clear that the use of nuclear force is, 99% of the time, prohibited under international humanitarian law on grounds of its nature as an indiscriminate weapon.
4th link refers to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the opinions of its resource persons on why nuclear weapons should be banned.
5th link refers to the legal history of its (nuclear weapons) creation and use.
6th link refers to the 1907 Hague conventions which, by itself, already contains provisions that should have prevented the use of the weapons in the first place. Oh well Hiroshima. Oh well Nagasaki.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/mururoa.htm
That's a case study on the effects of the testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
