Ace_O_Spades

I just finished having a lecture on this in political science, and I wanted to hear your guys/girls' input on the issue.

I know that if I have more guns than the people next to me, then they will think twice about attacking me, but I am also a credible threat to my neighbour... Which threatens their security... As I increase my security, the security of the rest of the world drops...

Do you think deterrance or disarmament provides more international security?

__________________
Feh.

Coppertop

Disarmament would only work if everyone disarmed, which is obviously not going to happen on a global scale. That being said, deterrence can only go so far. An arms race with no palpable end is equally disastrous. I think that as with most things in life, a balance is probably the best bet.

JumpinJesus

Good question. I'd say this: If you had more weapons than your neighbors, but you're all by yourself, then your neighbors could easily gang up on you and if they did, all those weapons wouldn't do much good.

I don't think disarmament is the answer, though, because there is no guarantee that everyone will be honest about it.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

guy44

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.'"

The_Dunedan

Disarmament ( on a nuclear scale, say ) would be the ideal. However, since the knowledge of how to build a nuke is already out there, it's impossible. Even if all the nukes were destroyed, someone would find a way to build another one. That being the case, deterrance ( within reason ) is the workable option. Sad, but true.

zen_tom

If you enter into mutually beneficial trading arrangements with your neighbours, they are going to be less likely to be interested in harming you and (hence) themselves.

aliali

Depends on you, your neighbor, the desirability of your seat vs. others, history of conflict, and other factors. It's a lot like asking which is better, gatorade or gasoline. Without more information, it's unanswerable.

daswig

It's better to be armed than unarmed. Why should we trust our security on the "good intent" of others? If somebody does something to harm you, you shouldn't "take it", you should kick their teeth in so that they don't do it again.

If you love peace, prepare for war.

aliali

Armed is one thing, but an arms race is another. If everyone feels they need to be as armed or more armed than their neighbor, are we any safer? In every circumstance? Being armed kept the Soviet Union out of an all out invasion (which would not have happened anyway), but bankrupted the country and led to its demise.

daswig

What bankrupted the Soviet Union was more than simply military spending. It was military spending coupled with a refusal to see the reality of their manufacturing capacity regarding goods that the people demanded. It's the old guns versus butter thing. If you spend too much on guns, you don't have enough butter, so you starve (or wage aggressive war to steal other people's cheese). If you don't spend enough on guns, you have lots of butter, but are easy pickings for those who overspent on guns and are looking for food. The prudent path is the middle. Some guns, some butter, rather than all or nothing.

Personally, I settle for the ability to kill anybody within, say, 500 yards of my house/person. Anything over that would be overkill. I don't need missiles or artillery (though I have at times had artillery, but that was for fun, not defense.) If it's not really necessary for defense, and you're starving, make butter, by all means. But if you're not starving, better keep making guns too.

zen_tom

When, personally, did you have to last kick-someone's-teeth-in? There can be no such thing as society if we are unable to trust the good intent of others. Yes there will always be one fool who doesn't understand that life is easier that way, and he will always end up having to be forcibly restrained by the civilised majority.

daswig

I haven't fired a shot in anger in years, but the last time I was involved in a situation that involved me with a gun, and with some shenanigans that I wanted to stop was under 6 months ago. I trust in people's good intent.....right up to the point that they demonstrate an inappropriate mens rea. At that point, it's too late to say "Gee, I guess I'd better run down to the gun store and buy a pistol, since they're rioting and getting ready to burn me alive in my house!" As for the "civilized majority" restraining me, well, let's just say that they better be wearing some serious armor (IE better than a BFV....anything less is just a reactive target to me) before trying that. I don't go looking for trouble. Should trouble come looking for me, I'm prepared. Consequently, I generally live in peace, and when there's turmoil near me, I restore the peace. I'm able to do this because my neighbors all know me and know that if it comes to "kicking in the teeth" time, they'll ALL lose if they go against me.

I love peace. I'm prepared for war. So peace is what I normally get. Funny how that works...

zen_tom

Not really, I'm prepared for peace, and have never had to raise a finger (let alone a gun) against anyone in my life. If you think you need a gun, then you live in the wrong neighbourhood.

KMA-628

Basic human nature works against this argument. History has proven, over and over and over, that you cannot trust the good intent of others. Current events in every corner of the globe prove my point as well. While it is a noble idea, it is one that will never work on a small scale or a large scale.

Unfortunately, it is never just "one fool". That category is filled with countless numbers.

As to the original question:

Neither work 100%, but deterrance will always work better then disarmament. Disarmament is a falacy, it has no effect on a threat. Take away the weapons and they will find some other means (i.e. a plane). Take away any type of means and they are still a threat through support of others who are a threat (i.e. monetary gifts to the families of terrorists).

At least with deterrance, you stand a better chance in the long run.

zen_tom

Deterrance will work better than disarmament alone, however, what works better than both of those options is the establisment of a mutually beneficial relationship.

100% correct, however, if you forge a successful relationship, there is no more 'they'. I know this isn't always immediately possible, and as such is even more of a long-run plan than the deterrance option - It is however, the safest position to be in.

joeshoe

Deterrance isn't mutually exclusive to disarmament, unless you're using some special definition of disarmamennt.

That being said, complete disarmament doesn't work, and complete lack of disarmament doesn't work either. Disarmament relies that everyone be disarmed. No police force that is reasonably restrained can keep a people completely disarmed. But you can still put a cap on the level of the weapons with regulation of the weapon types, and overall people will be more secure. So you don't have a completely helpless public, vulnerable to the few criminals with guns, and you don't have anyone with a minigun strutting through the streets.