Thinking the unthinkable?

[Drunk Bob]

It seems that North Korea and Iran may soon have nuclear weapons and may provide them to anyone with enough money.

[Chris Alger]

Owing to the collapse of its only rival superpower, current U.S. defense policy asserts the right of preemptive war against remote threats or, in reality, weak targets of opportunity. The U.S. therefore directly threatens every country outside its sphere of influence. The threat consists of an ever-growing ultramodern mobile military force more powerful than all potential U.S. "enemies" combined, including "10,729 intact nuclear warheads with spare parts available for thousands more." (Center for Defense Information).

The most predictable result of this posture is a furious race among potential target countries to acquire as many nuclear and other WMD as possible, if for no other reason to deter any preemptive attack. Given what happened to Iraq, particularly compared to the accomodation made for N. Korea, we would expect the most frenetic efforts to acquire a nuclear deterrent to be in the other two legs of the evil axis.

It's not "unthinkable" but the predictable, virtually inevitable, result of U.S. policy. Indeed, because it instills fear and provides an after-the-fact rationale for an extremely expensive and not very popular doctrine, it's partly welcome.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, you make it almost sound as if those regimes wouldn't be trying to acquire nuclear weapons if it weren't for the Bush doctrine. They were seeking nukes long before Bush took office. So perhaps now they are racing a little faster towards this goal, but they would be striving to do so regardless of current U.S. Defense Dept. policy.

The Stalinist dictatorial regime of North Korea and the totalitarian mullah-cracy of Iran have no right to exist. They horribly oppress their own people and threaten the stability of the world by arming terrorists and unstable regimes. Their people deserve better, and the rest of the world deserves better than to be held hostage to their attacks by terrorist proxies or by even worse threats.

[andyfox]

The Bush Doctrine is not much different from the foreign policies of Clinton and Bush I. All three administrations have operated under the same principles, and have made them clear to the rest of the world. We will maintain global military supremacy in perpetuity and pursue an ambitious, activist agenda. Get on our bad side and prepare to suffer the consequences.

Why do you insist that others act in a vacuum? Isn't it possible that North Korea and Iran are also reacting to our policies? There is no question that those regimes are horrific, but they're not simply irrational all the time. Isn't it conceivable that if the biggest, baddest guy on the block has 10,000 such weapons, others might attempt to develop one or two?

[TAFKAn]

Chris, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, there are nations out there who would seek to develop a nuke regardless of the current military might of any and all super-powers?

Conversely do you think there might be any nations that are NOT developing these kinds of weapons due to influence of U.S?

I'm not sure what your advocating with your post. Are you saying the U.S. should dismantle its military and encourage other nations to build nuclear arsenals? Are you saying the U.S. is not doing enough to discourage other nations from developing these arsenals?

Here's something to think about:
Two super powers that never started a world war:

USA
USSR

Two super-powers that suffered surprise-attacks by upstart burgeoning militaries from nations that were allowed to build up an arsenal:

USA
USSR

I think we can both agree that one of the stupidest foreign policy errors ever committed by the US and its allies was to allow Germany to rebuild an army after WWI. What we all take away from that lesson may be different, but the fact remains. I am not saying I know what the right answer is, but I don't think everything is as black and white as you try to make it out to be.

It's late and I'm babbling. You seem to be obsessed with your hatred of everything about the US. Are you really so sure you know everything?

[adios]

I'm looking for a presidential candidate for 2004 that has a magic wand that works. That candidate can wave his or her magic wand and erase all of the bad decisions and policies from previous administrations. I wish I would have found this candidate in 2000. That way when 9/11 happened, he or she could take that magic wand and erase all of the mistakes and failed policies that precipitated that act of terrorism and it make it go away. It sucks that the politicians that we elect can basically only deal with the current situation at hand and try to plan for a better future. I much prefer the potential magic wand candidate that can fix the past as well.

[Chris Alger]

No, I "make it sound" as if the Bush doctrine guarantees that these efforts will continue and likely be redoubled, not that the Bush doctrine is the exclusive cause of all that's wrong. That's why I said "if for no other reason to deter any preemptive attack." As for US Defense policy, the US has always been determined to "win" the arms race and has never entertained the prospect of a non-nuclear world. So saying that the nuclear arms race would would be the same if US policy were the opposite of what it has always been is more than a little ridiculous.

Your concern for democracy and liberty in N. Korea and Iran is no more apparent than your concern for the same in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or the Occupied Territories. Posting a lot of rhetoric in support of the official line simply reinforces your image of someone with a Lone Ranger fantasy about the US.

[MMMMMM]

The Bush doctrine is not pivotal as to whether or not those countries strive to acquire nuclear weapons, since they were doing so prior to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine doesn't "guarantee" that such efforts will continue because those efforts were "guaranteed" to continue no matter what the administration's position was. Note (obviously) that under Clinton those same efforts were taking place and North Korea simply took advantage of the aid while secretly reneging on their agreement. So don't misleadingly place the focus on the Bush doctrine as a cause or guarantee of such continued behavior.

You also really have no idea what my concern is regarding oppressed peoples around the world. My concern springs from two personal beliefs: 1) a deep abiding hatred of all forms of totalitarianism and fascism, together with a love of individual rights, and 2) a concern for our own security and the security of our allies, and the pragmatic realization that we cannot right all the wrongs in the world and replace all the evil dictators instantaneously and simultaneously. Therefore we must prioritize in keeping with three criteria: where the security threat is greatest, and where the humanitarian/political need is greatest, and where the prospect for making such changes is likely to be reasonable in terms of the human cost and the financial cost.

[andyfox]

I'm looking for a candidate that knows and understands the past and can learn from it to do better today and tomorrow. And who'll tell us the truth.

Alas, such a candidate has no chance to win.

[Chris Alger]

"those efforts were 'guaranteed' to continue no matter what the administration's position was"

The argument from your crystal ball again? Or is it from the "character" of the regimes, as in "Saddam Hussein's character proves that he threatens the U.S. with WMD?"

"So don't misleadingly place the focus on the Bush doctrine as a cause or guarantee of such continued behavior."

You haven't even discussed what the "Bush doctrine" is. It's this: "if you have nuclear weapons, we'll talk about them. If you don't and we don't like you, we'll invade." The notion that such a rule could have no bearing on any internal argument within those countries over the cost and pace of acquiring nuclear weapons is illogical because Bush, to a far greater extent than Clinton (or anyone else) ever dreamed, has incentivized the rush to build nukes.

"My concern springs from two personal beliefs..."

Nonsense. You've never criticized US support for totalitarianism or fascism in any of the countries where US aid helps it flourish. Whenever the US government targets someone or some country, you bring out justificaiton no. 1 (hatred of tyranny, terror, etc.). Whenever the US supports tyranny or terror, you bring out contradictory justification no. 2 (can't right all wrongs just yet). The only consistent standards you apply are: if the US or its official "allies" do it, it's presumably good or at least excusable, under the circumstances. If official bad guys do the same, it's presumably indefensible. For example, if the PA or Iranian government employed officials with records for promoting and defending terrorism comparable to Elliot Abrams (current NS Advisor for Middle Eastern Affairs) or John Negroponte (UN Ambassador), you'd be frothing at the mouth. Since it's your own government, however, you never mention it, saving your many broadsides for those forces you can't do anything about without the likely prospect of killing thousands of bystanders in the process, unlike the power you wield over your own government.

Since you constantly defer the judgment of officials (and their supporters) instead of demanding proof of objective standards, one must assume that if you lived in Tehran or Pyongyang, you'd be equally accepting of your government's line and would be saying pretty much the same.

[Chris Alger]

"Chris, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, there are nations out there who would seek to develop a nuke regardless of the current military might of any and all super-powers?"

Sure, but it hardly undercuts critizing US policies that tend to cement those impulses, especially when they displace other policies that would better discourage proliferation.

"Conversely do you think there might be any nations that are NOT developing these kinds of weapons due to influence of U.S?"

Sure, but it's irrelevant unless you have a basis for inferring that their reluctance to build weapons stems from the same policy that encourages them to do so, so that one can evaluate the policy from a cost-benefit standpoint. Otherwise, there's no connection.

"I'm not sure what your advocating with your post. Are you saying the U.S. should dismantle its military and encourage other nations to build nuclear arsenals?"

Of course not.

"Are you saying the U.S. is not doing enough to discourage other nations from developing these arsenals?"

Of course. For example, Pakistan just yesterday announced the testing of a nuclear-armable missile, obviously to be aimed at India. Of course, the US is involved in discussions to limit the amount of nuclear escalation those governments are responsible for. Yet nobody in the U.S. government threatened to cut U.S. aid to Pakistan, much less impose unilateral or request UN sanctions, much less the sort of military response that gave to Iraq for far less. My solution would be for the US to embrace the complete abolition of all WMD by all governemnts, including ours, enforced through intrusive on-site inspections of some multilateral agency, which in embroynic form already exists. You might say that this is somewhat utopian, and I'd tend to agree, but my point is that no one in the US government or the mainstream media wants it to happen at all. It's not even a long-term goal.

Instead, our policy is a hopeless morass of contradictions: we want to retain nuclear arsenals and increase our ability to use them, while hypocrtically and hopelessly demanding that no other country do the same, while at least tolerating the same from countries with whom we have close relationships (G. Britan, Israel). Yet, to justify our own military strength, we have to point to some limited amount of nuclear/WMD proliferation to provide a pretext. So our policy is that we're both for and against a certain amount of proliferation, the bottom line being no dramatic reduction in our own arsenal.

I agree that during that the US and USSR never blew up the world during their 40-years of "competition," but I don't see the point. Since the US is the only superpower, it follows that the US is more likely to start wars than it was in the past. I agree with this.

[MMMMMM]

Argument from my crystal ball??? LOL, you first invoked your crystal ball in claiming that the Bush doctrine or Defense Dept. policy ensured the continuing efforts of Iraq and the DPRK to pursue nuclear ambitions. I merely countered that--and mentioned the FACT that they were doing so BEFORE Bush ever took office. You suplied not one FACT for your conjecture, whereas my conjecture had at least SOME such basis (historical precedent). So who's more the crystal-ball reader: you or me?

As for your attacks on my own deeply held personal views, apparently there is no sense in my describing them to you, since you don't believe me anyway. Not that that, or other bad regimes, were the primary topic of discussion in this thread.

Also the suggestion that I would swallow the DPRK government line or Iranian mullah-cratic line if I were a (presumably informed) citizen of those countries is laughable to me. I'm simply not that average or stupid, although there are some who are foolish enough to believe that the government lines of those countries are no different from ours from a propaganda standpoint. Likewise there are also those who possess the ability to read and categorize, but who apparently have little ability to weigh, measure or compare.

[brad]

come on.

you think US is great no matter what.

if you were iranian, you would think iran great no matter what.

you dont even have an opinion on the trashing of the bill of rights.

p.s. if you have net worth of over 50 million then i guess you make sense but only in self interest sense.

[ACPlayer]

The real danger of Nuclear Weapons, IMO, is in Pakistan.

We have a country with which we are friendly as a matter of temporary mutual convenience.
A country who's political structure is very fragile.
A population which has strong ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
A country where just yesterday an Anti-Shia friend of Musharraf was killed by Shia groups.
The shia population in Pakistan could cause the overthrow of Musharraf or at least an escalation of a low-grade religious-civil war presently underway.
A country who populace, at least and probably parts of the military and intelligence services,that continues to support those opposing the US in Afghanistan.
A country that is shares borders with Afghanistan and Iran.
A country who's populace is dead set against the US occupation in Iraq.

It could well be the real nuclear tinderbox.

As usual, in our short sighted view, we are sweeping the Pakistan problem under the rug. Hopefully, the administration will recognize that it is failing in the re-building of Afghanistan and get out.

Conservatives have been right for years, we should not be Nation Building.

[MMMMMM]

"come on.

you think US is great no matter what."

No--just generally better.

"if you were iranian, you would think iran great no matter "

No brad, I'm not that dumb, and apparently neither are the Iranian students who are agitating for change even at the risk of prison and violence from the mullahs' thug enforcers.

"you dont even have an opinion on the trashing of the bill of rights."

wrong brad, I do have an opinion. My opinion is that it's an important concern, and also a complex enough subject that I am unsure as to the extent to which we might or might not be losing our civil rights. Contrast my opinion with the (ill-founded?) certitude of many who think the Bill of Rights is being totally trashed or with those who equally think it is not being trashed at all. No matter that many of them know no more about it than I do, eh?

"p.s. if you have net worth of over 50 million then i guess you make sense but only in self interest sense."

Yet another airtight deductions by brad;-)

[Chris Alger]

You're using the fact of prior efforts to build nukes as proof for the baseless conjecture that nothing the Bush administration has done -- or indeed could do -- affects those courses of action. You're ignoring the incentive argument by assuming it away, which is what you usually do with facts that undermine your prejudices.

As for your views, you also ignore the substance of the argument, which is that there isn't any consistency to the objects of your attack other than their designation by the US state and the right wing press as official enemies. When people point out the contradictions, you profess ignorance of the facts or assume them to be in your favor, then go on to the next "enemy" to bash. You aren't weighing, measuring or comparing anything that demonstrates any other basis for your views, certainly not any concern for democracy, liberty, human rights, anti-terror or other ideals.

[Chris Alger]

"neither are the Iranian students who are agitating for change even at the risk of prison and violence from the mullahs' thug enforcers"

Please. With infinitely greater freedom to protest, you can't bring yourself to protest any act of evil committed by the US, or even to investigate the allegations, and indeed deride those who do. Yet you suggest that when faced with cops and jail and truncheons you'd suddenly have the balls to take on the state, instead of succumbing to the flood of propaganda that dissidents are subversive, naive or manipulated by evil outsiders? You're living in a dream world of self-denial. Get real.

[MMMMMM]

"You're using the fact of prior efforts to build nukes as proof for the baseless conjecture that nothing the Bush administration has done -- or indeed could do -- affects those courses of action. You're ignoring the incentive argument by assuming it away, which is what you usually do with facts that undermine your prejudices."

First, I'm not calling it proof; second, your argument is automatically more baseless than mine since mine at least has historical precedent to support it.

"As for your views, you also ignore the substance of the argument, which is that there isn't any consistency to the objects of your attack other than their designation by the "US state and the right wing press as official enemies."

LOL, I would think that if they chant "Death To America!", or threaten to set our cities afire, it is reasonable to assume that they are our enemies--regardless" of whether or not our State Department so designates them.

"When people point out the contradictions, you profess ignorance of the facts or assume them to be in your favor, then go on to the next "enemy" to bash."

Yes, I know you think the Cold War was irrelevant to whether we should have supported bad regimes, if that's part of what you're driving at. Next subject, we've been through this already. Sorry my designations of bad guys who need to be dealt with don't match the list CA would come up with, and sorry you interpret it as you do.

"You aren't weighing, measuring or comparing anything that demonstrates any other basis for your views, certainly not any concern for democracy, liberty, human rights, anti-terror or other ideals."

Apparently you missed what I was referring to regarding ability to compare.

Also, I wasn't aware that this discussion was centered around the basis for my personal views. I thought we were primarily discussing something else in this thread, although I allowed the brief tangent since you erroneously attacked my genuine empathy for oppressed peoples.

[MMMMMM]

Chris I am saying that I would not be so STUPID as to automatically swallow the party line if I were an Iranian. With an IQ of over 170, somehow I just don't see that happening--especially when compared to the large numbers of Iranians who right now do not swallow the Iranian government's line or view. Apparently you guys think I must be much stupider than the average Iranian student or something /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Also, I'm beginnning to get a little irritated with you and brad launching BASELESS attacks on me, in the form of what YOU think I would hypothetically do or believe in other circumstances. YOU have NO IDEA what I would think or do in other circumstances; or at least, I have a better idea than you have of what I would think or believe.

I'm also beginning to get tired of arguing with people who:

1) can't seem to stay on topic

2) can't seem to usually make valid comparisons

3) are well-read (in some areas much better read than I), but frequently still can't think straight

As I am doing very well thank you recently playing online, I am finding it increasingly non-productive to engage in these arguments since I usually compose these posts between playing multiple hands simultaneously online. In fact I think I will disengage from these idiotic arguments for a while. Ciao. Good luck at whatever.

[brad]

i think you fail to realize that one level of propaganda is specifically directed at intelligent people.

[ACPlayer]

Why countries acquire Nukes (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=75&language_id =1)