| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/10 |
| 2005/1/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35773 Activity:very high |
1/18 I just don't get it. We have enough nukes to nuke every major
city on this planet, yet we go around the world telling other
countries "no, you cannot have nukes", not to mention we are
the only country on the face of this planet in the course of
humanity to use a nuke. We said Iraq definitely have WMD, well
where the fuck is it? Now we say Iran definitely have it and
must be eliminated or the world will come to an end. It's like
a millionaire telling the poor guy on the street, "no, you
cannot have $10!!" All this shit, and there are still idiots
on the motd believing Bush and the lies that are coming out of
this administration. I just don't get it. Without Iran and NK,
BushCo would have you believe that China would be ready to
nuke us any minute now. Just tell me again why Iran cannot
have nukes but we can, and we have shit loads of them.
\_ Because why does an oil-rich country need nukes?
\_ Because Iran is ruled by a cabal of religious extremists.
\_ And the US is not?
\_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
\- you must pay me 5cents.
\_ No, it's a republic with 3 branches of government.
By the way you are stupid.
\_ I see it ruled by the republicans.
\_ Who were lawfully elected to the offices
which they hold. If they fail to properly
enact the will of the people they will be
voted out of office. Just b/c you didn't
vote for them doesn't make them a cabal.
\_ Do humanity a favor and jump off Evans.
\_ Do humanity a favor and go fuck yourself.
\_ Stop thinking! It is unpatriotic.
\_ The will of the people? Bah. Bush won
a popularity contest, not an election
based on an electorate rationally considering
the issues. Now, having his illusory "mandate",
he will do is own will, not ours.
\_ Clinton also won a popularity contest. That's
what elections are. Ar-nold.
\_ You don't understand the difference between Iran and the US? Try
living in Iran for a year and let us know how it goes.
\_ Even forgetting about the arguments about how we're morally
better than them or have a better form of government, we don't
want them to have nukes because they are not our friends and we
want to have more power than them. It has nothing to do with
being fair. It's a seperate argument to say that we are a
democracy and they are not. But the real answer to the op's
question is that we don't let them have nukes because we don't
want to be threatened by them. We want to be the ones pushing
them around, and not vice versa. Besides, they might be crazy
and use them for all we know. Even if this is unlikely, why
risk it?
\_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling.
\_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling. -liberal
\_ I think it might be Chicom troll. His English probably improved.
\_ no, it's not me, and FYI, i don't think he is trolling.
\_ I've got a gun. That bad guy down the street who hates my guts
and wants to kill me is trying to figure out how to get a gun.
He hasn't done it yet but he's getting pretty close. In your
little world, I should go knock on his door and give him my
gun so that he can shoot my head off. HINT: Its a jungle out
there and only the fittest survive. I'm not a saint, and I
won't be in this life so if its btwn me or the bad guys, I'm
chosing me.
\_ I don't have a gun. But the guy up the street has one and
hates me. He has not shot me yet but I am not going to
sit here and wait. But since he is trying to keep me from
getting a gun, obviously he is preparing to shoot me. In
your macro world, you would shoot everyone who you think may
shoot you. And yes, the guy just hates you because you're
free. Ever figure out why people hate each other?
\_ Good try, but you have made some key mistakes. The
critical one is that you assume the good guys want
to shoot the bad guy who is trying to get the gun.
This is not true. If the bad guy wasn't out to
get the good guy, he would leave them alone.
The second mistake is that you state that the guy
up the street hates you. This is also not true.
You are the hater who is going after the good guy
who lives up the street.
The reason why the bad guys hate us is quite simple.
It is the green eyed monster known as envy. Those
buggers hate the fact that a free and open society
leads to scientific progress and material gain.
They resent the fact that our freedoms have made us
the most important and prosperous nation in the
history of human civilization while their own
outmoded ideas have brought them nothing at all.
\_ I was with you for your first paragraph, but the second
one is bullshit. You really think the average Iranian
who shakes his fist at the Great Satan of the U.S.A.
is pondering where their civilization went wrong, and
becoming envious as a conclusion? When people live in
a dictatorship, they tend *not* to do much thinking,
which is the problem. Maybe the people *writing* the
propoganda think the way you say, but the average man
on the street is just spouting crap he heard from his
TV/radio/Cleric. I'm guessing that the real thinkers among
them hate the regime so much that they secretly like
America just because it's the opposite of what they hate.
I've sure met a lot of former soviet citizens who felt
that way about Reagan's America.
\_ Because Iran said they won't
\-You may wish to read the famous paper "the spread of nuclear
weapons: more may be better" [adelphi paper #171] by fmr/emeritus
ucb prof kenneth waltz. there is also a book by waltz and sagan
that is ok. --psb
\- oh this paper is online at:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
[i didnt check if it is complete. pretty much everything
by waltz is good.]
\_ Please explain why the world will be better with a nuclear
Iran.
\_ Someone to nuke Israel, duh!
\-are you more worried about nuclear "leakage" from
the ex-Soviet Union or an Iran bomb? How about Iran
vs. Pak? I think Pak is more likely to fall apart.
My concern w.r.t. nukes is not the ability of states
posessing them increase their ability to influence
outcomes beyond their borders, but their ability to
maintain good command and control systems. It makes
sense for Iran to chase the bomb. It probably didnt
make sense for South Africa. I dont think it makes
sense for Brazil at the moment, but who knows 10yrs
from now under the Jeb administration.
\_ Sodians are mostly white imperialist,
who uses different standard to judge others because
they think USA is morally/culturally superior. And
if you notice, it's not just nukes. Chemical weapon,
biological weapons, land mines... the theme is
consistant:
we got them all and free to use it, but no one else
should have it. *ESPECIALLY* if you are not Christian
Jews, and/or white. Did USA signed universal nuclear
test ban treaty? nope. is USA destroying stockpiles of
chemical/biological weapons nope.
\_ If the jackal asked the elephant to please give
up his trunk and his tusks, the elephant would
laugh. There is a universal law, it is called
survival of the fittest. If you foolishly give
your advantage away you are asking to get killed.
The TBT is a terrible idea. It ties our hands
but allows our enemies to to whatever they like.
It is a good thing that ADULTS run this world,
not fools like you.
\_ In other words, let's quash those Tibetans
since TI is bad for China and detrimental to
China's vital national intereset. It's
a matter of survival of the fittest. When
Americans complain about human rights, they
are just being a bunch of hypocrites and
Pharisees, just like in the Bible.
- Chicom troll
\-ObMelianDialog: The strong do what they can
and the weak suffer what they must. [nb i mean
that as an empirical not normative statement.
assessing the normative nature of the international
system is beyond the scope of the motd, but see
man, the state, and war, and the Stag Hunt example]
--psb
\- ObAbeLincolnQuotes:
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and
in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do
our duty as we understand it."
"The only assurance of our Nation's safety is
to lay our foundation in Morality and Religion"
-- chicom troll
\- Does the Melian Dialog fit with some kind of
Hindu or Buddhist karma world view? |
| 7/10 |
|
| www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better, Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981) INTRODUCTION What will the spread of nuclear weapons do to the world? I say spread ra ther than proliferation because so far nuclear weapons have proliferate d only vertically as the major nuclear powers have added to their arsena ls. Horizontally, they have spread slowly across countries, and the pace is not likely to change much. Short-term candidates for the nuclear clu b are not very numerous. and they are not likely to rush into the nuclea r military business. Nuclear weapons will nevertheless spread, with a ne w member occasionally joining the club. Counting India and Israel, membe rship grew to seven in the first 35 years of the nuclear age. A doubling of membership in this decade would be surprising. Since rapid changes i n international conditions can be unsettling, the slowness of the spread of nuclear weapons is fortunate. Someday the world will be populated by ten or twelve or eighteen nuclear- weapon states (hereafter referred to as nuclear states). What the furthe r spread of nuclear weapons will do to the world is therefore a compelli ng question. Most people believe that the world will become a more dangerous one as nu clear weapons spread. The chances that nuclear weapons will be fired in anger or accidentally exploded in a way that prompts a nuclear exchange are finite, though unknown. Those chances increase as the number of nucl ear states increase. Most people also believe t hat the chances that nuclear weapons will be used vary with the characte r of the new nuclear statestheir sense of responsibility, inclination t oward devotion to the status quo, political and administrative competenc e If the supply of states of good character is limited as is widely tho ught, then the larger the number of nuclear states, the greater the chan ces of nuclear war become. If nuclear weapons are acquired by countries whose governments totter and frequently fall, should we not worry more a bout the worlds destruction then we do now? And if nuclear weapons are acquired by two states that are traditional and bitter rivals, should th at not also foster our concern? Predictions on grounds such as the above point less to likelihoods and mo re to dangers that we can all imagine. They identify some possibilities among many, and identifying more of the possibilities would not enable o ne to say how they are likely to unfold in a world made different by the slow spread of nuclear weapons. We want to know both the likelihood tha t new dangers will manifest themselves and what the possibilities of the ir mitigation may be. We want to be able to see the future world, so to speak, rather than merely imagining ways in which it may be a better or a worse one. In two ways: by deducing expectations from the structure of the international political system an d by inferring expectations from past events and patterns. With those tw o tasks accomplished in the first part of this paper, I shall ask in the second part whether increases in the number of nuclear states will intr oduce differences that are dangerous and destabilizing. I DETERRENCE IN A BIPOLAR WORLD The world has enjoyed more years of peace since 1945 than had been known in this centuryif peace is defined as the absence of general war among the major states of the world. The Second World War followed the first o ne within twenty-one years. As of 1980 35 years had elapsed since the Al lies victory over the Axis powers. I n the past third of a century, conflict has generated hostility among st ates and has at times issued in violence among the weaker and smaller on es. Even though the more powerful states of the world have occasionally been direct participants, war has been confined geographically and limit ed militarily. Remarkably, general war has been avoided in a period of r apid and far-reaching changesdecolonization; and the emergence of new strate gies for fighting guerrilla wars and deterring nuclear ones. The prevale nce of peace, together with the fighting of circumscribed wars, indicate s a high ability of the post-war international system to absorb changes and to contain conflicts and hostility. Presumably features found in the post-war system that were not present ea rlier account for the world's recent good fortune. The biggest changes i n the post-war world are the shift from multipolarity to bipolarity and the introduction of nuclear weapons. The Effects of Bipolarity Bipolarity has produced two outstandingly good effects. They are seen by contrasting multipolar and bipolar worlds. First, in a multipolar world there are too many powers to permit any of them to draw clear and fixed lines between allies and adversaries and too few to keep the effects of defection low. With three or more powers, flexibility of alliances keeps relations of friendship and enmity fluid and makes everyone's estimate of the present and future relation of forces uncertain. S6 long as the s ystem is one of fairly small numbers, the actions of any of them may thr eaten the security of others. There are too many to enable anyone to see for sure what is happening. and too few to make what is happening a mat ter of indifference. In a bipolar world, the two great powers depend militarily mainly on them selves. This is almost entirely true at the strategic nuclear level, lar gely true at the tactical nuclear level, and partly true at the conventi onal level. In 1978, for example, the Soviet Union's military expenditur es were over 90% of the total for the Warsaw Treaty Organization, and th ose of the United States were about 60% of the total for NATO. Not only do we carry the main military burden within the alliance because of our disproportionate resources but also because we contribute disproportion ately from those resources. In fact if not in form, NATO consists of gua rantees given by the United States to her European allies and to Canada. The United States, with a preponderence of nuclear weapons and as many men in uniform as the West European states combined, may be able to prot ect them; Because of the vast differences in the capabilities of member states, the roughly equal sharing of burdens found in earlier alliance systems is n o longer possible. The United States and the Soviet Union balance each o ther by internal instead of external means, relying on their own cap abilities more than on the capabilities of allies. Internal balancing is more reliable and precise than external balancing. States are less like ly to misjudge their relative strengths than they are to misjudge the st rength and reliability of opposing coalitions. Rather than making states properly cautious and forwarding the chances of peace, uncertainty and miscalculation cause wars. In a bipolar world, uncertainty lessens and c alculations are easier to make. The military might of both great powers makes quick and easy conquest impossible for either, and this is clearly seen. To respond rapidly to fine changes in the military balance is at once less important and more easily done. Second, in the great-power politics of a multipolar world, who is a dange r to whom. and who can be expected to deal with threats and problems, ar e matters of uncertainty. Dangers are diffused, responsibilities blurred , and definitions of vital interest easily obscured. Because who is a da nger to whom is often unclear, the incentive to regard all disequilibrat ing changes with concern and respond to them with whatever effort may be required is weakened. To respond rapidly to fine changes is at once mor e difficult, because of blurred responsibilities, and more important, be cause states live on narrow margins. Interdependence of parties, diffusi on of dangers, confusion of responses: These are the characteristics of great-power politics in a multi polar world. In the great-power politics of a bipolar world, who is a danger to whom i s never in doubt. Moreover, with only two powers capable of acting on a world scale, anything that happens anywhere is potentially of concern to both of them. Changes may af... |