Baltimorei

[jp1]

Do you think they want them for defensive reasons or offensive reasons? The Saudi's are betting on offensive and now want nukes of their own.

Obviously one can't know for certain what another is thinking. However, at this point in history only one country has ever actually used nuclear weapons in any fashion whatsoever beyond providing a powerful threat, so the odds are that they'd be used defensively. The concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't just apply to the US and USSR. Are the Iranians really so stupid and self destructive to believe that if they nuked Israel that we wouldn't retaliate?

[catherine]

The main problem I have with our current form of capitalism is the lack of accountability.

I'm not too concerned about the Soros and Koch effects. I'm concerned more about the mindless and vastly huge sums of capital that are responsible to the morals of no one individual, but instead are managed purely for return and are several layers removed from human responsibility. Creatures like the CalSTRS and CalPERs pension funds ($189 billion and $279 billion in managed assets, compare to Soros at $24 billion...). It's like Skynet, but for money.

+1

[Alan]

Obviously one can't know for certain what another is thinking. However, at this point in history only one country has ever actually used nuclear weapons in any fashion whatsoever beyond providing a powerful threat, so the odds are that they'd be used defensively. The concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't just apply to the US and USSR. Are the Iranians really so stupid and self destructive to believe that if they nuked Israel that we wouldn't retaliate?

Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?

[catherine]

I've been enjoying this debate (had no time yesterday to add my two cents): thanks for keeping it going, kib, LDAHL, Alan and others: provocative questions have been raised--LDAHL, yes, realism is important, but I lean towards idealism, and I think both are called for.

Here's one of my very favorite soliloquies--from Man of LaMancha:

I've been a soldier and a slave. I've seen my comrades fall in battle or die more slowly under the lash in Africa. I've held them in my arms at the final moment. These were men who saw life as it is, yet they died despairing. No glory, no brave last words, only their eyes, filled with confusion, questioning "Why?" I don't think they were wondering why they were dying, but why they had ever lived. When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? To surrender dreams - -this may be madness; to seek treasure where there is only trash. Too much sanity may be madness! But maddest of all - -to see life as it is and not as it should be.

I think "life as it is" today should not be dogma, and that goes for any moment in time. Life is impermanent, and I think it's important to move on when times call for moving on.

Here's an interesting take on capitalism from a Native American. The article is long, but worth a read. The context is a response to Marxism v Capitalism, and he contends that they are just two sides of the same coin. Thinking one is the polar end of the other is missing out on the bigger picture.

Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans.

[kib]

Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?

It's a question, but while martyrdom is included in the religious beliefs of some fundamentalists, I kinda doubt it's a high priority for most people of any nation.

Bae's 'layers of responsibility' is to me the biggest thing ... normal people living their lives seem to so rarely agree with (or benefit from) decisions made for them by entities with no skin in the game beyond culling profit from it.

Catherine - I loved the native American quote, that so nicely summed up what I've been digging toward in my own questions of "how to be". It's nice to know that there really is another side to the coin that is (or at least was) accepted wisdom by many. I don't know if I am ready to entirely embrace it, but it's like a glowing little flashlight to stick in my pocket when I lose my way.

[jp1]

Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?

Oh please. If everyone in Iran wanted to be martyrs they'd all be heading to Israel right now. A land war where their true religiosity could be on display for all to see would be better than just getting vaporized in a nuclear bomb blast. And could be done today instead of years in the future. And let's be realistic. Sure there are a small subset of Muslims that are happy to be martyrs, but it's not the people in power, and it's not the majority of the population. Their genes are programmed to want to propagate into the next generation just as strongly as anyone else's. A nuclear bomb obliterating your entire country prevents that from happening.

[Gregg]

Oh please. If everyone in Iran wanted to be martyrs they'd all be heading to Israel right now. ..Sure there are a small subset of Muslims that are happy to be martyrs, but it's not the people in power, and it's not the majority of the population.

I don't thing any reasonable person believes all Muslims or all Iranians or all of any other large subset of humanity want to be martyrs. The problem with WMDs of all kinds, including nukes, is that it doesn't require a majority to be martyrs, only a very small group or even a well connected individual can make it pretty miserable for a lot of the rest of us.

[jp1]

To be clear I don't think Iran getting nukes is a good thing. At all. Frankly I don't think anyone having nukes is a particularly good idea for just the reasons you cite, Gregg. Even the US, back in the 60's, had people in very high levels of power that wanted a nuclear war with the USSR. Thankfully those plans never came to fruition. My point though was simply that when looked at from Iran's point of view it's perfectly logical for them to want nukes. Their main enemy in the region has nukes, as well as the backing of us, the country with the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

I was actually trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out the problem with LDahl's comment that it's necessary to be able to defend your way of life from all aggressors so one needs sufficient defensive strength. After all, if one feels that their way of life is threatened by the most powerful country the world has ever seen what steps are reasonable/logical for them to take?

[Gregg]

I agree that, unfortunately, thus far Darwin's theory has favored the bullies on the block. I'm thinking (hoping?) the advent of our most recent technologies is the beginning of a trend away from the advantage gained by being able to kill your adversary 37 times over. The ability to inflict suffering on that enemy will still be a sought after goal, but at least the threat won't be from instant death or widespread, prolonged sickness. Baby steps toward enlightenment, I suppose.

[LDAHL]

I was actually trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out the problem with LDahl's comment that it's necessary to be able to defend your way of life from all aggressors so one needs sufficient defensive strength. After all, if one feels that their way of life is threatened by the most powerful country the world has ever seen what steps are reasonable/logical for them to take?

That is a valid point. If I'm a fanatical theocrat, I've got to feel threatened by the very existence of places like Israel or the US. As long as there are alternatives to the true faith out there, I'm always in danger of cultural corruption. They might even interfere with my efforts to force my faith on the various infidels or heretics who might otherwise submit to my holy warriors.

So what to do? I can make myself as dangerous as possible to raise the price of direct intervention. Nuclear arms have historically served that purpose. They have the added attraction of my more fervent dreams of cleansing the world with hellfire and achieving a spectacular sort of martyrdom for my people (whether they're necessarily on board with that does not especially concern me). My other options include forming alliances (hard to do given the level of hatred most of my neighbors have for me) and subverting my enemies through bribery and terror. I need to be somewhat careful with this, because economic sanctions at a sufficient level create the risk that insufficient graft for the Republican Guard could make my domestic position untenable. I also need to be concerned that the world at large may at some point start believing my rabid threats and calculate that action against me is justified.