|
Hi TLers,
I have a little notebook which I jot down stuff that comes to my mind. Most of it is random but I think that there are some things in there that is worth discussing. So here's my first blog post.
I know this is going to be a little controversial in the sense that I'm advocating more means for the world to blow itself up over many times over but having thought this through a little it seems like states having more nuclear weapons might actually bring about a more stable, peaceful world.
In the Cold War, the nuclear tensions between the USA and USSR was governed by the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory. The rationale behind this theory was that should one bloc attempt to attack the other bloc with nuclear weapons, their destruction would be 'assured' because of the retaliatory attack. In this case, the US and USSR had enough weapons to ensure that not only their states would be destroyed but their allies too would inevitably fall in the process should a nuclear holocaust occur. Because the threat of destruction was high, the incentive to work towards preventing conflicts in the form of direct conventional warfare was high and as such there was no direct confrontation between the US and the USSR. I do recgonize that proxy wars were being fought between the allies of each country (eg. Korean War, Vietnam War) but because there was no direct threat to the mainland...or motherland, the threat of nuclear retaliation was thus low.
Fast forward a few decades where we see the Obama administration advocating 'Project Zero' the movement towards the complete disarming of all nuclear weapons worldwide. I want to argue that this is actually a move towards a greater threat for state to state conflicts than having more nuclear weapons. We have to assume that with the MAD theory in mind, a state with nuclear weapons would not attack another state that possesses nuclear weapons directly for fear of nuclear destruction. From this standpoint, I think that the removal of nuclear weapons would give a lot more reason for expansionist states to engage in direct conflict against another state for land/resources because the threat of destruction has been mitigated. This would in turn give certain states more leeway to negotiate with other states because their military might would inherently be greater than others.
So here's the crazy part, in my opinion, every state should have the capacity to own nuclear weapons. This is based on the assumption that 1) a state would not attack another state for fear of destruction and 2) a state does not wish to be wiped out from the face of this Earth. Having nuclear weapons, despite raising the tension levels in the world exponentially, would deter every other state from attacking you.
So that's my first post. I know there are some limitations in there so please feel free to comment and discuss below.
Thanks!
 
|
Wow, are you really serious?
|
MAD was an awful idea. All it takes is one mad man to end the world. Some of the more outlandish tea partiers would quite happily nuke Iran for example. The only thing crazier than MAD was Reagans Star Wars.
I think the world feels much safer without MAD. I know Europe does, Britons no longer live in fear of Russia destroying us, or the US prompting Russia to blow us up.
Having nuclear weapons, despite raising the tension levels in the world exponentially, would deter every other state from attacking you.
Given Argentina attacked Falklands despite Trident, I think that's a bunch of crap as well.
EDIT: You sir, are a nutter.
|
I think the big hole in your idea is the word "assume". With the consequences of any assumptions being wrong completely unbearable, there is no room at all for any potential error. This is why I believe that the default solution should be to work towards a nuclear weapon free future. It doesn't mean that we will never be able to make them if required, but that they primed ready to go at the push of a button cannot be a good thing.
|
I believe that nukes still have some sort of purpose, but given that crazy people exist everywhere, what we should do is pool them and use them for emergencies (I dunno, asteroids? Aliens?) Put them somewhere trustworthy, like Switzerland or the bottom of the ocean, and make it so a bunch of nations have to agree to use them for good before opening the lock.
The "bunch of nations" can be the UN Security Council or something.
|
Yeah, so as others have said it does make the world unstable. Not just because of state actors but also terrorists (borders are porous). In the latter case it allows states to deny responsibility (by acting through proxies, secretively), which would lead to chaos. Also assuming some worldwide calamity, like if global warming made resources scarce (or just overpopulation), countries may just work towards designing strong underground bunkers or missile defense systems and take their chances. The difference being nuclear warfare is much worse than conventional - at least conventional takes money, resources, man power. Its easier to stop then setting off a bomb.
With nuclear weapons we know you need an enrichment facility and some very special raw materials (as well as very advanced technical knowledge). So relatively speaking its easier to control the propagation of these weapons. Aggression can be stopped more easily through sanctions and international condemnation - I think the world is too integrated now for one state to act violently. Everyone needs trade for something, especially with dwindling non-renewable resources (oil, perhaps minerals, uranium).
|
You're asuming that politicians and people of power actually give a shit about the millions of people they govern. Except they don't. Like the other guy said, all it takes is one person to end the world.
|
So everyone should have them and not use them. Wouldn't it just be simper that no one has them and the probability of someone going off the deep end and using one is 0?
|
MAD worked because USSR and US weren't lunatics. Nowadays you have all kinds of crazy people (I'm looking at religious extremists) that wouldn't mind killing everyone in the world who doesn't agree with their views.
|
So this is basically like saying that if everyone carried a loaded gun no one would dare to fire the first shot. It doesn't quite work that way. Removing the possibility of sudden total destruction seems like a more reasonable option than actually increasing its potential radius.
Utilizing fear as a tool in this way will only create acts of desperation, not safety.
|
No sane nation is going to use nuclear weapons. Real life isn't some game of Civilization where you can just nuke everybody and take all their cities and win the game.
Maybe some batshit radical country would try to nuke somebody they really hate, but that's an argument AGAINST weapons, not FOR them.
|
I'll just say it that nuclear disarmament is probably the best choice for all parties, because the wars will happen sooner or later and in all honesty they should happen, as wars are actually a way for economical recuperation since it generates a lot more jobs and creates a lot of demand for goods
but with nuclear weapons there is no war, there is just destruction, better to kill just each other than to destroy the land itself
|
United States22883 Posts
Symmetric warfare doesn't really happen anymore, so what happened during the Cold War (and quite frankly, we were incredibly lucky to avoid it) isn't really relevant.
Even if it did, MAD worked between the USSR and US because of second strike capability. If the US had decided to attack South Africa when they had nuclear weapons, they would've been done. MAD essentially relies on either submarines or allies (which is how to get into world wars), so it really only applies between the US, Russia and China. Without that, you're reliant on an overwhelming first strike which is a gambit no one wants to be involved in.
The more modern nuclear crisis will be in a developing country (namely Pakistan) which has a healthy history of insurrection and is currently unstable. Pakistani leadership are smart enough not to do anything, but were there to be a coup, access to their weapons would be in jeopardy and you'd see the US or India act on it (or perhaps you wouldn't see it happen, but it'd happen.) And the reason for the panic? Because the collateral of nuclear conflict is enormous. Radiation aside, a nuclear winter would stunt agriculture around the world, most especially in East/Southeast Asia.
I hope humanity has gotten past the Romans sowing salt into Carthage's earth because the long term effects of nuclear war are much greater than that, and nuclear weapons don't serve the same deterrence as they did before.
|
I'm sorry but I am going to have to completely disagree with you.
This is an idea that you hear relatively frequently within realist foreign policy circles and it suffers from a few fundamental flaws that completely undermine the argument.
First, this entire theory is based on the idea that all states will act rationally in all situations. This is, frankly, bullshit. States act irrationally, they do things that are not in their own best interests and they make decisions that don't make "sense" from a standpoint of a rational point of view.
For example, look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many of the people directly involved in the incident (Most notably then, Secretary of State Robert MacNamara) maintained that, rather than some rationalist desire to stay alive and reliance on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction to cause cooler heads to prevail, luck played the deciding role. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy received two notes from Russian premiere Nikita Khrushchev within hours of each other. The first note was aggressive and antagonistic in nature, while the second was much more conciliatory. For about 24 hours, the Kennedy Administration agonized over trying to figure out which note actually expressed the position of the Russian government. In the end the US government decided to respond to the more conciliatory note and eventually a deal was reached. Despite the well known power of nuclear weapons, the situation could very easily have escalated into all-out nuclear war.
States do not always act rationally. The often act instead on preconceived biases and prejudices, have historical animosities and conflicts or are ruled by people who's agendas are simply incompatible with the intentions of neighbor states or powerful international actors (North Korea anyone?).
Another problem is the rise of trans-national actors in the last 50, or so years. If Al Qaeda were to obtain a nuclear weapon and used it, according to MAD, who the hell do we nuke in retaliation? Terrorist groups play havoc with traditional conceptions of foreign policy and security in ways that classical models simply cannot at this point account for. In traditional foreign policy, if you have a state that insists on abrogating the traditional order there are means to ostracize or contain that state. Terrorist organizations and their ilk frequently do not have such a readily identifiable 'home base' from which they operate.
In many ways, various terrorist organizations obtaining nuclear weapons is the single greatest threat the world faces. With that said, one of the huge concerns that the US has is the safety of the world's existing nuclear arsenal. Post-Soviet Russia has been notoriously bad at protecting their existing nuclear stockpile, this is further compounded by the fact that a large number of their nuclear weapons were located in former soviet bloc countries, rather than Russia proper, further complicating cleanup. Additionally, states like India, Pakistan and North Korea certainly do not have proper command and control of their nuclear arsenals, increasing the likelihood of those states "misplacing" one of their weapons (especially in the case of Pakistan). Imagine how much worse that worry would be if any two-bit dictatorship could maintain a nuclear stockpile at will.
Finally, as we have seen during the nuclear age, tension between nations with nuclear weapons tends to lead less to the two nations finding common ground due to their fear of mutual annihilation and more to brinkmanship. petty rivalry and proxy wars which are generally pretty horrific in nature.
|
there is no reason to keep or even produce new nuclear arms. Fear is no legit argument, because the potential to fuck up outweights everything. What if only one technical slip-up happens, what if terrorist get hold of it, what if a militant party wins an election, what if war happens and these weapons attain into the hands of the "wrong" people, what if it`s war and the weapons get actually used. Nuclear weapons are abominations of our technical world and they needed to disapear yesterday.
|
MAD only worked because neither the US or the USSR wanted a world ending conflict. Giving nuclear weapons to all countries is one of the most horrible ideas i've seen pop up on here (kudos however for posting and not just being a lurker). Your assumptions of no one wanting to fire the first shot is a pretty big assumption when the ramifications look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Giving nuclear weapons to everyone also exponitniallly increases the risk for one "disapprearing" and ending up in a terrorist organisation and being used againist the US or some other country with major population centers.
|
Every dictator should have nukes so that if they lose they can blow up their county and perhaps the neighboring countries as well.
|
On April 02 2012 23:59 anomalopidae wrote:
I'll just say it that nuclear disarmament is probably the best choice for all parties, because the wars will happen sooner or later and in all honesty they should happen, as wars are actually a way for economical recuperation since it generates a lot more jobs and creates a lot of demand for goods
but with nuclear weapons there is no war, there is just destruction, better to kill just each other than to destroy the land itself
There will never be a nuclear disarmament. Nuclear proliferation is already too wide spread and the thought of all parties meeting up and just giving up their development and nuclear arms is wishful thinking.
|
The problem with this is that it assumes that every state acts rationally, i.e. that mutually assured destruction is enough to deter a state.
A state run by religious fanatics is not one that acts rationally, and therefore this scenario instead puts everyone at risk of total annihilation, which is the worst possible outcome.
|
Are you saying this because you feel singapore will never survive a direct confrontation?
|
I refuse to believe nuclear fire is the correct way to ensure the safety of our planet
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 00:06 Saline wrote:
A state run by religious fanatics is not one that acts rationally, and therefore this scenario instead puts everyone at risk of total annihilation, which is the worst possible outcome.
I assume you're talking about Iran, but it's really not the case. I really don't think there's a non-rational actor in geopolitics now. Occasionally unpredictable, but not irrational.
Part of the problem is that rationality calls for different requirements from each party, and it isn't always the best option. The US could've prevented the Cold War entirely and become a hegemony in 1951 had they decided to flatten the USSR before they completed their nuclear weapons, like the Joint Chiefs proposed. Truman's conscience won out, but from that perspective at that time, a preventative attack certainly was a rational option.
|
1) The UN is a corrupt institution.
- mostly because there are leaders of genocide part of the UN and that already is F'd up
2) Deterrence theory has been disproven by a couple authors. And in general having a corrupt country with nuclear weapons doesn't work. If we look at some of the countries in Africa the ones that have committed genocide to purify the race. Giving them nuclear weapons seems like a bad idea already.
|
|
|
On April 03 2012 00:06 thesideshow wrote:
Are you saying this because you feel singapore will never survive a direct confrontation?
That's what everybody here is taught :D
|
I only read a little bit, but Ithink I can see the arguments youre bringing in. But in my opinion no state should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. You never know if the world will see another Hitler, and Hitler would have definitely used nuclear weapons, if he had some. You just cant stand the risk.
|
Ok guys, I read through everything and was enlightened. I think that I might have gone a little over my head trying to come with something that I thought would sorta work but...wow. The comments were quite eye opening.
I think I was leaning too much on the 'rational actor' argument because North Korea was on my mind when I was thinking this through and as crazy as he seemed like he was, Kim Jong Il wouldn't have risked nuclear warfare with the South or the US. Even so, I do believe that the decisions that a state makes are not based on one man's whim or fancy, even dictators have advisors.
I do recognize that I failed to see the transnational groups (terrorists if you will) argument. Honestly this completely slipped my mind despite the severity of the situation in our modern world.
|
On April 03 2012 00:19 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 00:06 thesideshow wrote:
Are you saying this because you feel singapore will never survive a direct confrontation? That's what everybody here is taught :D
Amen brother.
|
Hello.
Watch Dr. Stranglelove: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Then you will see why MAD doesn't work.
|
Japan11285 Posts
While I agree that MAD worked pretty well as a deterrent during the Cold War and a few years afterwards, the assumption that destruction is assured is what I see as the flaw in your argument.
First of all, not all nuclear weapons are of the same quality. Some nuclear weapons are better at penetrating an advanced anti-ballistic missile system than others. This means that if two given countries ever throw nukes at each other, the country that can't penetrate the other's defences will be the only one obliterated.
And of course, there is a way to get around MAD; building a larger stockpile of weapons. This was seen in the nuclear arms race between the USSR and the US and less notably, between India and Pakistan.
Cheers, if you think Singapore can't win in a conventional war, then you're wrong. Look at Vietnam for example ^^.
|
Nuclear weapons should be used as fuel for ships for use to travel to the stars.
|
I actually completely agree with the OP, the day we achieve World Pease and destroy all our weapons with be the day humanity is in the gravest danger. There is a bounty of evidence that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent for state actors (poli sci term meaning governments). The fact that the cold war never flared into a direct hot war between the USSR and US as well as the detant that has developed between Pakistan and India are both great examples. I also think you would be crazy to discount the impact of nuclear weapons when China backed down during the Taiwan crisis in the mid 90s. US and China actually got fairly close to open war before things cooled down.
The matter of the fact is no two nuclear armed nations have ever engaged in a direct armed conflict. Playing hypothetical "what-ifs" is of course of limited value, but I believe that without MAD the conflict between the US and USSR would have flared into full blown war. With the system of allies, it would have constituted WWIII, and millions likely would have died.
The truth is geopolitical tensions are not going to go away anytime soon. While people are inherently irrational, the fact is the grave implications of total nuclear war are so terrible, that they have actually averted a number of wars. There's a reason why the Russian government is making so much noise over the US missle defense system; it has the theoretical ability to disrupt the detant that MAD has created.
I'll admit that the idea of non-state actors getting a hold of a nuclear weapon is frightening; reality is that this is a low risk scenario. Liberating a warhead from an ICBM would be extremely difficult, and even if they had gotten a hold of highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium actually constructing a device is actually quite difficult. The more realistic scenario is terrorists creating a "dirty-bomb", but civilian nuclear power actually presents a greater threat of this happening than does military nuclear programs.
On April 02 2012 23:16 DKR wrote: MAD was an awful idea. All it takes is one mad man to end the world. Some of the more outlandish tea partiers would quite happily nuke Iran for example. The only thing crazier than MAD was Reagans Star Wars. I think the world feels much safer without MAD. I know Europe does, Britons no longer live in fear of Russia destroying us, or the US prompting Russia to blow us up. Show nested quote +
Having nuclear weapons, despite raising the tension levels in the world exponentially, would deter every other state from attacking you.
Given Argentina attacked Falklands despite Trident, I think that's a bunch of crap as well. EDIT: You sir, are a nutter.
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons though. The OP is talking about mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. And again, no two nuclear armed states have ever gone to war with each other. (after having both developed nuclear devices)
On April 03 2012 00:01 Jibba wrote:
Symmetric warfare doesn't really happen anymore, so what happened during the Cold War (and quite frankly, we were incredibly lucky to avoid it) isn't really relevant.
Even if it did, MAD worked between the USSR and US because of second strike capability. If the US had decided to attack South Africa when they had nuclear weapons, they would've been done. MAD essentially relies on either submarines or allies (which is how to get into world wars), so it really only applies between the US, Russia and China. Without that, you're reliant on an overwhelming first strike which is a gambit no one wants to be involved in.
The more modern nuclear crisis will be in a developing country (namely Pakistan) which has a healthy history of insurrection and is currently unstable. Pakistani leadership are smart enough not to do anything, but were there to be a coup, access to their weapons would be in jeopardy and you'd see the US or India act on it (or perhaps you wouldn't see it happen, but it'd happen.) And the reason for the panic? Because the collateral of nuclear conflict is enormous. Radiation aside, a nuclear winter would stunt agriculture around the world, most especially in East/Southeast Asia.
I hope humanity has gotten past the Romans sowing salt into Carthage's earth because the long term effects of nuclear war are much greater than that, and nuclear weapons don't serve the same deterrence as they did before.
You don't necessarily need submarines to enforce MAD. Most states now have radar capable of detecting ICBMs from a great distance, enabling the state under attack to launch bombers or deploy their own ICBMs in time. That's why Canada and the US still jointly operate NORAD and an entire array of artic radar stations. If Russia were to launch a nuclear strike, the US would know about it long before the bombs started to hit.
I think you're right though about a Pakistani coup being a real threat. But I think the fear of nuclear fire consuming Islamabad might give pause even to right-wing religious zealots. I think a greater threat might be during the confusion that would ensue from a coup attempt, terrorists groups may be able to liberate radioactive material with which to construct a dirty bomb. But again, civilian nuclear programs pose a much greater threat to that potentiality.
|
On April 03 2012 00:38 Praetorial wrote:
Hello.
Watch Dr. Stranglelove: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Then you will see why MAD doesn't work.
God I love that film.
|
I love Dr.Stragelove but it's really not the best reference for why MAD doesn't work anymore,or rather,doesn't work in the same way it used to.
|
What use is a doomsday device if you don't TELL anyone about it!
|
On April 03 2012 00:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 00:06 Saline wrote:
A state run by religious fanatics is not one that acts rationally, and therefore this scenario instead puts everyone at risk of total annihilation, which is the worst possible outcome. I assume you're talking about Iran, but it's really not the case. I really don't think there's a non-rational actor in geopolitics now. Occasionally unpredictable, but not irrational. Part of the problem is that rationality calls for different requirements from each party, and it isn't always the best option. The US could've prevented the Cold War entirely and become a hegemony in 1951 had they decided to flatten the USSR before they completed their nuclear weapons, like the Joint Chiefs proposed. Truman's conscience won out, but from that perspective at that time, a preventative attack certainly was a rational option.
Sorry but I would say every religious leader and every theocracy is irrational. If there is one country that will drop the bomb, it's one that believes it is doing their God's will.
|
On April 03 2012 01:09 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 00:18 Jibba wrote:On April 03 2012 00:06 Saline wrote:
A state run by religious fanatics is not one that acts rationally, and therefore this scenario instead puts everyone at risk of total annihilation, which is the worst possible outcome. I assume you're talking about Iran, but it's really not the case. I really don't think there's a non-rational actor in geopolitics now. Occasionally unpredictable, but not irrational. Part of the problem is that rationality calls for different requirements from each party, and it isn't always the best option. The US could've prevented the Cold War entirely and become a hegemony in 1951 had they decided to flatten the USSR before they completed their nuclear weapons, like the Joint Chiefs proposed. Truman's conscience won out, but from that perspective at that time, a preventative attack certainly was a rational option. Sorry but I would say every religious leader and every theocracy is irrational. If there is one country that will drop the bomb, it's one that believes it is doing their God's will.
first of all, nations don`t throw bombs, people do. Religion may be a catalysator for certain things, but atheists also can be that kind of men, who value certain "believes" higher than the life of people. These people are the true danger.
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 02 2012 23:07 shArklight wrote:
So here's the crazy part, in my opinion, every state should have the capacity to own nuclear weapons. This is based on the assumption that 1) a state would not attack another state for fear of destruction and 2) a state does not wish to be wiped out from the face of this Earth. Having nuclear weapons, despite raising the tension levels in the world exponentially, would deter every other state from attacking you.
Here's the problem. The level of proliferation you advocate substantially increases chances of miscalculation, making nuclear war a more probable thing. It also makes every potential war, regardless of scale, a nuclear war, with cascading effects globally. Not to mention the fact that an increased nuclear arsenal globally, especially in unstable or rogue states, increases the chances that malicious non-state actors get their hands on nuclear material.
Even realists during the Cold War began to realize the folly of ever-increasing nuclear arms production and proliferation amonst satellite states beginning in the 1960s.
|
Like many people said it doesn<t make sens to arm everyone so that nobody use it, disarming everyone is a better solution.
Then if WMD were proliferating, you<d get the problem that some states would still not have it and be at the mercy of others willing to use it. We dont need another Hiroshima.
|
To complete OP, nuclear weapons are defensive in nature since their use produces and End Civilisation scenario, while conventional weapons are offensive in nature since they allow you to take over and control the defeated. Less conventional and more nuclear means less offensive action indeed.
|
There will ALWAYS be submarines in all seas ready to launch nuclear weapons at any given spot on the planet. Not even talking about classified weaponry.
|
You may be right that the states wouldn't attack each other.
Fanatical groups will pretty easily be able to steal the weapons from less stable countries though (how much nuclear material has gone missing from Russia since the 80s?) They won't hesitate to destroy the US/Israel/insert country here if they could.
|
I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist.
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind.
A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way.
Essentially, you are saying:
"Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace."
It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race.
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK.
Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover.
We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space.
All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand.
|
|
|
nice idea, unfortunately your 40 years late and now it doesnt work anymore.
|
You should just rename this thread "why the cold war was a great idea."
|
Its pretty much obvious that either the OP is trolling, or doesn't understand how history worked. Basically Reagan rejected Detente and the MAD theory that went with it (goodbye mr. kissinger). Its pretty well known that this style of politics is stupid and is pretty much a lockdown. It doesn't work and there are many reasons as to why this assumption is stupid, i won't go into them, OP you can look up people much more eloquent at speaking and much more astute at writing on the subject. But yeah what everyone else has said.
|
On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
I mentioned like 5 examples of where MAD stopped a full war.
India and Pakistan, China and India, China and the US (mid 90's Taiwan crisis), USSR and the US, etc. While perhaps nuclear weapons were not the only consideration for backing down; I think it's a fair bet they played a large role.
I'll say it again, no two nuclear armed nations have ever gone to war with each other directly. Nuclear deterrants have essentially made conventional war between world powers irrelavent.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Turkey is not a nuclear armed nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
Though NATO did (and maybe still does) have ICBMs in Turkey.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
I don't know that any one is arguing in favor of greater nuclear proliferation. I think the argument is for maintaining the US/UK/French nuclear deterrant depending on where you're from. At least that's the argument I would make. I don't want to see crazy dictators or religiously headed government with nuclear weapons, thus is why I support sanctions and military action against Iran. However I would say that free and fair democracies have every right to develop nuclear weapons, as long as they sign onto the non-proliferation treaty. If for example Germany wanted to develop nuclear weapons (hypothetically, I know it's unlikely) I wouldn't have a single problem with it.
|
This is crazy. The world has already too many nuclear weapons. If anything, we should try to get rid of them or put them to use in some way which doesn't endanger humanity.
It sad how it's possible that we(humans) could potentially destroy ourselves before finding aliens and achieving space travel. 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 04:54 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
I mentioned like 5 examples of where MAD stopped a full war. India and Pakistan, China and India, China and the US (mid 90's Taiwan crisis), USSR and the US, etc. While perhaps nuclear weapons were not the only consideration for backing down; I think it's a fair bet they played a large role. I'll say it again, no two nuclear armed nations have ever gone to war with each other directly. Nuclear deterrants have essentially made conventional war between world powers irrelavent. Show nested quote +
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Turkey is not a nuclear armed nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferationThough NATO did (and maybe still does) have ICBMs in Turkey. Show nested quote +
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
I don't know that any one is arguing in favor of greater nuclear proliferation. I think the argument is for maintaining the US/UK/French nuclear deterrant depending on where you're from. At least that's the argument I would make. I don't want to see crazy dictators or religiously headed government with nuclear weapons, thus is why I support sanctions and military action against Iran. However I would say that free and fair democracies have every right to develop nuclear weapons, as long as they sign onto the non-proliferation treaty. If for example Germany wanted to develop nuclear weapons (hypothetically, I know it's unlikely) I wouldn't have a single problem with it.
I'm sorry but it has been assumed by many knowledgable historians, including John Lewis Gaddis, one of the most prolific Cold War authors that MAD is a terrible idea, so I don't know what academic resource is telling you that MAD worked. It was an ok scare tactic, but was basically making everyone fear for their lives on a constant basis, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
On April 03 2012 04:45 Shai wrote:
You should just rename this thread "why the cold war was a great idea."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this. Astute, well stated, and completely succinct. This is basically what you are saying OP.
|
title is enough to say that you are crazy i didint even read this blog
|
Hahaha OP you should play Defcon, it's a great game.
|
On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist.
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind.
A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way.
Essentially, you are saying:
"Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace."
It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race.
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK.
Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover.
We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space.
All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand.
what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot..
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
In a multipolar world, which is becoming the current state of international affairs post Cold War era, it is suicide for more states to have nuclear weapons. Too many dyads that crisscross and increase the chance of conflict. I'd rather have two superpowers who have all the nukes, then at least we can predict a conflict because there would only be one true conflict (Cold War esque), rather than a bunch of people with the power to blow up the world...not knowing exactly what they will do and who they will fight. I don't think the OP knows what he is talking about in my honest opinion.
Please read about Mearsheimer's article in Foreign Affairs journal and Bruce Russet's Grasping Democratic Peace.
|
To quote Kim Jong Il, referencing what he said he would do if he lost a war with the US over his nukes, "I will blow up the world, for what is Earth without North Korea?" All it takes is one mad man to kill us all, and I'm absolutely certain that at least 2 dozen nations in the world that do not have nukes at the moment possess the psychological capabilities to blow up the world if they did have nukes, and that's not even counting the potential of crazy (or crazier) insurrectionists taking power in a politically unstable nation and blowing up the world that way.
I do disagree with project zero, on the principle that most likely many nations will not get rid of every nuke and thus hold an insurmountable advantage, as well as the fact that we still know how to make more after Obama is satisfied he got all the nukes. The status quo, which is forbidding more nations for getting nukes, is the greatest solution I can see at the moment.
|
On April 03 2012 06:27 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist.
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind.
A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way.
Essentially, you are saying:
"Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace."
It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race.
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK.
Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover.
We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space.
All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand. what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot..
The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second.
|
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes.
|
On April 03 2012 07:03 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 06:27 Endymion wrote:On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist.
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind.
A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way.
Essentially, you are saying:
"Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace."
It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race.
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK.
Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover.
We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space.
All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand. what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot.. The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second.
Zimbabwe.
|
On April 03 2012 07:03 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 06:27 Endymion wrote:On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote:
I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist.
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind.
A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way.
Essentially, you are saying:
"Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace."
It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race.
MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place.
People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK.
Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions.
If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them?
Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development.
To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing.
2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover.
We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space.
All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand. what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot.. The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second.
that's because he is a retarded dicatator with no hope of salveging zimbabwe.. same with south africa and mozambique as far as i'm concerned, the US and UK never should have fucked southern africa over even if they were racist, the area is paying the price now..
|
On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes.
Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains.
|
On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains.
Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
|
An interesting argument, but you miss the point OP.
The reason nuclear weapons are so powerful as a deterrent is because for the first time in history, the political class is directly threatened by war. It used to be in the old days that kings and generals were not on the front lines, but merely commanded the armies of peasantry. They were removed from the violence. Any threat to them could be met by sending more servants of the State to the battlefield. It was only when the entire kingdom or country was ruined that the political class were vulnerable.
Nuclear weapons however, bring the front lines to the political class. It makes them vulnerable. They directly fear nuclear retaliation, not just because they can be targeted, but because they are the primary targets. Nuclear weapons are there to cut the head off the snake.
So, the existence of nuclear weapons is, ultimately, a good thing, because it makes conventional warfare between nuclear nations virtually impossible. However, it also is a power that no person should have, nor need. Remember, the only reason nuclear weapons were developed is for the use by the State vs another State. Why? Because States are concentrated power, and threatening concentrated power directly is the best way to victory.
In a free society, without a State, there is no head to cut off. Defense is not over arbitrary borders, but private property. National defense does not exist, but private security. How do you fight a war vs an enemy which has no leadership, no government to force the surrender of its subjects? Look at how much the US struggles at fighting Al Qaeda and other dispersed organizations in the middle east. How would nuclear weapons do anything but wipe the entire place out? You can't fight that kind of enemy with large nuclear armament.
States have no reason to use nuclear weapons vs non-states. Nuclear weapons are for use against states.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains. Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
That's not what rationality is. Reason != logic. Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 03 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains. Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
That is a non-answer. Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics.
In terms of what you are replying to, rationality has nothing to do with actions being 'iffy.' In fact, actions that are 'iffy' are often times the most rational things to do. Injecting morals and ideals into foreign policy analysis necessarily clouds judgement and makes resulting decisions based on such judgement inflexible.
In 1948, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote:
The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil.
In 1978, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote:
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between the quality of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both moral and political terms.
We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful. Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?
|
On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
Do you feel that that is an objective truth?
edit: to be more clear, the proposition that "objectivity doesn't exist"
edit redux: Also, I'm curious to know how you understand the difference between "reason" and "logic" in more precise terms than simple non-identity.
|
On April 03 2012 12:33 itsjustatank wrote:
Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics.
How does one determine what is a cost and what is a benefit?
|
On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
Is that an objective statement?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 12:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist. Do you feel that that is an objective truth? No, I don't. It's an induction based on lack of evidence, not a logical deduction.
edit redux: Also, I'm curious to know how you understand the difference between "reason" and "logic" in more precise terms than simple non-identity.
Logic exists within reason. Through logic you define rules and come to conclusions according to those rules, whereas reason does not necessarily obey the rules of the system. You can reason without logic, you cannot use logic without reason.
On April 03 2012 12:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 12:33 itsjustatank wrote:
Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics. How does one determine what is a cost and what is a benefit?
It's subjective criteria.
In the context of the original quote, and often in game theory (and economics), rationality is mostly composed of self preservation. In that sense, Iran and North Korea are both rational actors. Their decision making comes through political sense and intuition, albeit with their own flairs, not faith.
|
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm not pulling out the Organon to have this discussion. You can have the philosophical discussion with someone else. I'd rather talk about international relations.
EDIT: And it was from Aristotle and syllogism where the first distinction could be made, even though he interchanged them in common language as most of us do.
|
Deal, so long as you don't feel philosophically justified 
edit: I do have to say, though, I think this reaction is probably the biggest problem in international relations.
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset.
|
My problem with nukes is that they are a response to nukes. We've developed past needing them as a weapon. If someone nukes someone else, the response will be to nuke them...maybe? depending on the country they might not even follow MAD. its more likely that old, "lost" nukes will fall into some bunch of fanatics' hands and they'll use it to blow up some populated area. and then the response is...nuke their home country? what? beyond that, realistically we have more effective ways to kill eachother that don't involve mutual destruction. and we have more ways to dominate eachother that don't even involve killing.
|
On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset.
What mindset? Philosophical?
I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles.
It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis!
To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important?
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important?
Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world.
|
On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world.
What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties?
Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent.
How do you understand "self-interest"?
Do you consider yourself an "intellectual"? If not, how do you see yourself?
edit: I hope it's clear from my tone that I'm legitimately interested in your replies.
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 03 2012 14:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world. What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties? Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent. How do you understand "self-interest"?
International relations doesn't posit an 'optimal outcome' because there isn't one. The inability to achieve optimal outcomes is the very reason for its existence. 'Optimal outcomes' only exist in the ivory tower world of purely academic thought-games.
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
|
On April 03 2012 14:52 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world. What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties? Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent. How do you understand "self-interest"? International relations doesn't posit an 'optimal outcome' because there isn't one. The inability to achieve optimal outcomes is the very reason for the its very existence. 'Optimal outcomes' only exist in the ivory tower world of purely academic thought-games.
Yes, the academic community accepts this. Theory always posits optimal outcomes, in reality there is always noise. Any good theoretician understands this.
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
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?
edit: How would you define the difference between a "thought-game" and the kind of thing the OP does? Are they the same thing?
|
On April 03 2012 14:52 itsjustatank wrote:
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
So then you accept that if it turns out that these are not good (or normative) definitions of self-interest then all arguments stemming from this premise are only academic thought games?
|
Hong Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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.
|
Caladbolg, thanks, these look interesting.
|
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.
While the current order may be anarchy, it is only because current norms dictate it as such. In a sense, samzdat's post echoes the constructivist interpretation that better encompasses the broader scheme of events when it refers to these rule-sets being created by us, as realism itself is insufficient in explaining scenarios like the end of the Cold War or the initial desires to reach agreements like the NPT in the first place.
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
On April 04 2012 15:07 LlamaNamedOsama 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. While the current order may be anarchy, it is only because current norms dictate it as such. In a sense, samzdat's post echoes the constructivist interpretation that better encompasses the broader scheme of events when it refers to these rule-sets being created by us, as realism itself is insufficient in explaining scenarios like the end of the Cold War or the initial desires to reach agreements like the NPT in the first place.
Yet for constructivism to work, an "overarching supranational governance structure which governs relations between states" still has to be formed. That governance structure will have to coerce sovereignty and power from the status quo balance of power. Good luck with that. Current international organizations do not meet this definition, and the world order continues to be anarchical and it will continue to be for a long time coming.
Finally, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agreements are not somehow mutually exclusive to a realist approach (after all nuclear disarmament and non-prolif treaties began under their watch in the Cold War). Great powers have just decided that the risks posed by other, potentially rogue, states (or even hostile non-state actors) attaining nuclear weapons are unacceptable to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
