Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

guy44 · 11-16-2004, 03:25 PM

Without a doubt, both. Regarding nuclear weapons, MAD works with the nations that already have them. These are relatively competent, generally rich nations who can afford to guard their nuclear stockpiles and prevent accidental launch. They generally have sufficient forces (60 nukes, according to some experts) for survivable second strike capability. The threat of nuclear war is enough to deter war between the states.

However, even if no new states acquired nuclear capability, the world would be in danger. The U.S. and USSR almost blew each other up a few times, despite multiple safeguards. I don't trust Pakistan and India, who are in a cold war of their own, and North Korea's nukes obviously worry me. Furthermore, Russia's nukes are far from secure. So regarding nukes, non-proliferation.

For other WMDs, things get even more dangerous. A single aerosol of something scary could do frightening things. It is way to easy for somebody really really bad to get and deliver. Disarmament/non-proliferation for sure.

"Standard' weaponry provides an interesting example of deterrance. I believe that offensive realists, such as John J. Mearsheimer, are totally incorrect in focusing merely on the fact that my military might is a threat to my neighbor, no matter what, and must be managed/dealt with at some point. I mean, realistically, Canada isn't worried about U.S. military might, nor is France worried about future German aggression (I mean, Mearsheimer in his book, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," actually suggested that the rest of Europe still nervously eyes Germany. Yeah, sure...). I don't agree completely with defensive realists, either, but they have a point: extremely powerful defensive military capabilities in the modern era make country-to-country invasion really quite difficult. You will think twice before invading someone who can so easily defend their borders. How many times has one country really invaded another over the last 50 years? Very few, especially in comparison to invasion rates before then.

I personally take a Liberal (not liberal, but with a big "L") point of view. I believe that growing interdependence in the world economy, international institutions, and the rise of the juridical state, has made it very difficult for one nation to invade another.

I suggest reading "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed" by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz regarding the pros and cons of nuclear proliferation. "War & Change in World Politics" by Robert Gilpin and "The Paradox of American Power" by Josepth Nye excellently lay out the case for "complex interdependence," or the Liberal belief that the global nature of the world, not realist rational acting, is largely responsible for the generally peaceful nature of today's world.

11-16-2004, 03:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Without a doubt, both. Regarding nuclear weapons, MAD works with the nations that already have them. These are relatively competent, generally rich nations who can afford to guard their nuclear stockpiles and prevent accidental launch. They generally have sufficient forces (60 nukes, according to some experts) for survivable second strike capability. The threat of nuclear war is enough to deter war between the states. However, even if no new states acquired nuclear capability, the world would be in danger. The U.S. and USSR almost blew each other up a few times, despite multiple safeguards. I don't trust Pakistan and India, who are in a cold war of their own, and North Korea's nukes obviously worry me. Furthermore, Russia's nukes are far from secure. So regarding nukes, non-proliferation. For other WMDs, things get even more dangerous. A single aerosol of something scary could do frightening things. It is way to easy for somebody really really bad to get and deliver. Disarmament/non-proliferation for sure. "Standard' weaponry provides an interesting example of deterrance. I believe that offensive realists, such as John J. Mearsheimer, are totally incorrect in focusing merely on the fact that my military might is a threat to my neighbor, no matter what, and must be managed/dealt with at some point. I mean, realistically, Canada isn't worried about U.S. military might, nor is France worried about future German aggression (I mean, Mearsheimer in his book, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," actually suggested that the rest of Europe still nervously eyes Germany. Yeah, sure...). I don't agree completely with defensive realists, either, but they have a point: extremely powerful defensive military capabilities in the modern era make country-to-country invasion really quite difficult. You will think twice before invading someone who can so easily defend their borders. How many times has one country really invaded another over the last 50 years? Very few, especially in comparison to invasion rates before then. I personally take a Liberal (not liberal, but with a big "L") point of view. I believe that growing interdependence in the world economy, international institutions, and the rise of the juridical state, has made it very difficult for one nation to invade another. I suggest reading "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed" by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz regarding the pros and cons of nuclear proliferation. "War & Change in World Politics" by Robert Gilpin and "The Paradox of American Power" by Josepth Nye excellently lay out the case for "complex interdependence," or the Liberal belief that the global nature of the world, not realist rational acting, is largely responsible for the generally peaceful nature of today's world. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"