Frence Makeing sence.....What?!?!

[Saint Ehlers]

 It might kill a lot of politicians and infrastructure, but the government would continue because that is how the government is designed.  So, I agree that a nuke might get into the wrong hands and we might have a lot of people die, but the international system would continue.

Ah, I thought we were talking about people. Not the need to redesign a political map. My bad.  

Seriously though, I don't give a fig that the government continues, the impact on human life is what I'm talking about. If several million people die, that's a major event, regardless of the integrity of the government of those people.

You miss the whole point.  What I'm saying is that no leader would take an action knowing full well that it would be the end of him, his people, and his nation.  None of those examples come anywhere near that.  I have no idea where you got China from - they're still around.  How can they be an example of a nation that killed themselves?

Actually, I didn't miss the point. I never claimed that it was the absolute destruction of the nation. However, I still contend that leaders have conducted policies that were bad for their country in the long run. Even fatally bad. I don't recall you placing a condition that a mistake had to be a final one though, so that's where I got China from. They carry out practices daily that weaken their government and nation. On the other hand, you still haven't acknowledged my point. I'm STILL NOT talking about someone who's making decisions that he knows will finish him. I'm talking about a scenario where the leader makes a decision after his fate is already sealed.

You're looking at this awfully ideologically.  Illogically ideologically, I might say.  You say that I am wrong about nuclear proliferation because 'in the real world' the human element counteracts the theory of the balancing factors of nuclear proliferation.  Yet you are morally obliged to do something that 'in the real world' is impossible because of those same human elements.

Actually, I'm not clear what you're saying there, but I think I see what you may see as the problem with my argument. Yes, I'm being ideological. Maybe even illogically so. But I don't see that as a problem, even if it doesn't fit someone else's notion of good argument (ah, yes, I know I'm entering Flaming territory and simply saying something's right because I said so, but that's not what I'm doing, so let it slide, will ya?).

What I'm saying is that a global government stability is irrelevant in the face of human life. Yes, I'm conflicted on the subject, possibly self-contradictory, but that's what makes this such an interesting subject (and the reason why I'm actually posting instead of just peaking in once a week or so). The reason why I think nuclear proliferation is bad even if it adds stability is I think in the long run we'll end up with an even greater instability eventually, and the cost in human life and quality of life will be drastically higher even in the mean time. Preserving life and quality of life is of a higher order of moral responsibility than the stability of international relations. So, I don't think we really disagree, it's just that according to Mearsheimer the stability is the end all, and I don't think that's so. The question is really whether this particular brand of status quo is more beneficial to human life and quality of life.

As far as my personal, non-arguing-for-the-fun of-it views:
I think that nuclear proliferation might work .... (in other words, it's not going to happen in the real world.)
... There are a lot of good reasons to go to war in Iraq, but I have yet to see any good reason for the US to make a preemptive strike in Iraq.  There may very well be evidence out there that the gov't can't release because of protecting methods and means, but so far I'm not convinced of anything.

Well, then we really agree. Let's keep arguing.  

[House of Mustard]

But why isn't stability the end all?  Yes a stray nuke would kill a lot of people and be a very bad thing, but I'm saying that universal proliferation would end massive world conflicts, and decrease the quantity and intensity of minor conflicts, although terrorism might increase.

So the question is, which is better?  More war and less terrorism?  Or more terrorism and less war?

War, historically, has beaten terrorism in the number of dead a million times over.  9/11, though terrible, was the largest terrorist attack ever and it's death toll was no where near even minor battles in WWII.  In WWI, 5000 British men died PER DAY.

Now, of course, a nuke would kill quite a few more.  But nukes still aren't as devastating as total war.  For example, in one day the bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed about 80,000.  In one day of firebombing in Tokyo, 85,000 were killed.  The numbers are very similar with the only difference being that that kind of firebombing went on all the time in Japan and Germany.  One nuke killed 80k, but WWII killed 50 million, 67% of who were civilians.

Granted, nukes are bigger now, but not the ones that a terrorist could get - the so-called 'suitcase nukes.'  I will also grant that a nuke that went off in New York City would be far more devastating than it's 1945 atomic predecessor.  But just as nuclear weapons have grown more advanced, so have conventional weapons.  Why are we so afraid of nukes destroying a city when a couple of dozen B-52s could do the same job?

Terrorism is a real threat, I just would rather see more terrorism and less war.

Ok, on to other things:

I'm STILL NOT talking about someone who's making decisions that he knows will finish him. I'm talking about a scenario where the leader makes a decision after his fate is already sealed.

I see now the point you were making, but I still disagree.  You named three leaders, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin, and you also mentioned China.
--Lenin and Stalin:  Whaaa??  How did they make decisions when they knew their fate was sealed.  What big war did Lenin fight, let alone lose?  There was, of course, the two Russian revolutions - BUT THEY WON!
And Stalin was on the winning side of WWII.  He led the USSR to the biggest territory/client gain it ever had and the country survived another forty years after his death!  If your argument is that these leaders made destructive decisions, knowing that their country was dying, how could either of these possibly fit?
--China:  China has, right now the strongest economy it's ever had, the strongest military it's ever had and it is generally considered by most everybody who knows anything about the place to be the next rising superpower.  How is their 'fate sealed?'
--Hitler:  Ah - Finally!  Somebody who lost!  He still made commanding decisions, many of which were stupid, but he never suicidal ones (other than for himself).  If the argument we're having is about whether or not a leader would take one last wild shot after he knew he was done for, Hitler never did anything like that.  His last major offensive was the Battle of the Bulge, which he did have a legitimate chance of succeeding with.  Everything else he did was purely defensive.  Of course, he never surrendured, but that's quite a bit different from making a last Khan-setting-off-the-Genesis-device kind of attack.

I would love to address more of the argument, and I will later, but I have to get to class.

[Saint Ehlers]

Ok, I see the problem. You think my arguments are cohesive and staying on the same subject! Foolish  mortal.  
Seriously, though. I'm addressing different aspects of the argument. I didn't mean to imply that any of those countries fit my fear perfectly, only to state that all of these examples have actively pursued policies that, rationally, they should have known would damage their counties' interest. Lenin created an atmosphere of mistrust that led to fear and mistrust, even among his loyal followers, an environment that led to problems for the next 80 years. Stalin, quite frankly, got into a bit of luck over winning WWII. His initial deals with Hitler, who openly espoused an ideologyy diametrically opposed to his own, cost them quite a bit of loss for three years and led to more suffering in cities such as St. Petersburg than most modern cities have ever seen. It also made victory for the USSR in WWII a doubtful outcome. Etc. My point is only that leaders do not always act in their countries', or even their own, interest.

No, there's no historical precedent for the "one last shot." But that hardly makes it unrealistic since all the other factors in the theory make sense. There's a first time for everything. And just because there's no historical precedent (like there wasn't for universal sufferage, or a Catholic President of the USA) doesn't mean it won't ever happen, or even be unlikely to happen.

As for nuclear proliferation being superior, I'm still not convinced that it significantly reduces the over-all number of deaths and injuries and collateral damage from violent conflict. We saw tons of fighting in the 20th century, and, as you said, very little of it from WMDs. Just because the two main guys aren't directly causing wholesale slaughter in each other's immediate territory doesn't indicate any sort of world peace. For example, we didn't see the internal rebellions in the Balkans much during the Cold War, but that can largely be attributed to Soviet suppression of information and to (also Soviet) violent and brutal suppression of dissidents.

"On a similar but unrelated note..." Notice how many of the things Bush said in his speach last night closely resemble the things the Hussein has been saying about us? Yeah, I thought so too. Granted, it's my belief that Mr. Hussein is evil while Mr. Bush is just, well, daft, but still, it kind of destroys any reliability he might have had for me.

[Prometheus]

I see strains of truth in Bush's comments, though. Iraqi rhetoric never matches up with reality very well.

[House of Mustard]

I don't have much time for a real response right now, but as far as the State of the Union, I was pleasantly surprised.  The numbers he gave (regarding evidence against Iraq were interesting, though far from damning), and I'm interested to see what Powell will give to the UNSC on February 5th.  Maybe he'll finally show some of the real evidence they say they've got.

But in reference to Ehler's comment, I thought that Bush's accusation against Iraq could be fairly made against the US as well:

He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.

Not only has the US done both of these things, but we all seem pretty proud of it.  Why is that?

[Fellfrosch]

That's America's greatest contradiction--we demand a worldwide governing body, but we insist on acting above it. "We're the only ones smart/level-headed/advanced enough to do [insert anything we want to do here]."

You know when you get a group of kids together, and there's always some girl who's the same age as everybody else but she thinks she's the mother and has to take care of everybody? Then she starts lecturing everybody and trying to get them to do whatever she wants. America is a lot like that annoying little girl.

[Saint Ehlers]

Exporing the "why" on that requires some cultural grounding. It's been my impression that anti-UN sentiment is stronger in the western parts of the US. For example, the town in Utah that passed a law FORBIDDING any display that openly supported the UN (a gross violation of the 1st amendment, and probably a handful of others if I took the time to think about it). Likewise, it was only when living in Las Vegas and Utah that I heard people tell me that I should be shocked and alarmed that a soldier was court martialled for failing to salute a UN officer (imo, he darn well SHOULD have been court martialled, that was out of line, even if you have to interpret in terms that the US military was placed under a UN action, and therefore the implied order was to hearken to UN officers).

I think a lot of this has to do with fear of no home rule. The west has become sort of a bastion of the state rule sentiment. The federal government is bad, according to this line of thinking, so therefore anything that moves central authority even further away from local govt is even worse, generally speaking, even Biblically evil.

I think a lot of it also has to do with New World Order conspiracy theories too (I'm not going to get into that debate, but just remember that when most politicians say the phrase "new world order" they are referring to something grossly different from a) pro wrestling, and b) Illuminati style world domination conspiracies).

To those not directly affected by UN movements (such as those combatting world hunger or disease problems), the UN tends to be seen as a quasi-world government organization. I personally don't think that's bad, though many, many do.

To those who do benefit (like my friend in the Coast Guard who benefits directly from how members of foreign militaries are treated), the UN is usually seen as a boon.

But at the REAL root of all of it, I think the problem comes from the idea that the UN, whether or not it is a world government organization, is not completely controlled by the US, and therefore, it must be bad. Americans resist control and regulation, and the UN seems to be a constricting factor. It is, in short, a violation of personal space. (Though let's not forget that it comes in handy when we want to drop bombs on foreign countries).

[House of Mustard]

Okay, I've got a little time - I'll be brief.

My point is only that leaders do not always act in their countries', or even their own, interest.

I agree with that.  It could be argued that many of the United States' policies over the last several decades (specifically economic and social) have been somewhat destructive.  But that does not mean that they are going to do something deliberately and knowingly to get themselves nuked.

As far as historical precedent for one last shot, I don't think that it is such a plausible possibility.  There is a mountain of historical precedent for people defending themselves insanely, down to the last man.  That is the essence of Realist thinking, that people will always vie for power and do nothing to give that power up.  If that means that they will attack a weak foe, then they will do it, but never never ever at the expense of their own power.  Saddam wants power more than he wants to kill the Americans, more than he wants to unify the Arab world and definately more than he wants to get nuked.

As for the numbers you request, I'll do a little research and get back to you - probably tomorrow.

Anyway, that's it for now.

[House of Mustard]

Oh crap - while I was posting, Fell and Ehlers posted.  My last post refers to Ehlers' post before this most recent one.

Fell -  America is the Lucy Van Pelt of the world?  That's sad.  Who's Charlie Brown?  For that matter, who is Pig Pen?  I say he's the French.

[Lord_of_Me]

America is a lot like that annoying little girl.

can i use that as my signature?

[Fellfrosch]

You can if you want, but "America is the Lucy Van Pelt of the world" is a lot funnier. Only if you know who she is, I guess.

[Lord_of_Me]

i dunno who that is

[Saint Ehlers]

Lucy is the girl who picked on Charlie Brown a lot. Linus' older sister (Linus is the kid with the blanket).

[House of Mustard]

Does that make Britain the Linus of the world (since it kind of follows the US around and nods its head when we tell them that fir trees give us fur for coats and that the ants job is to make the grass grow)?  And is the security blanket that Britain clings to is its one time status as the main world power?

[Saint Ehlers]

No, because Linus was also more thoughtful and learned than Lucy and/or Charlie Brown. And while Britain often feels like they are, Tony Blair, who presumably represents them, has shown otherwise.

But on that note, I think that makes the French Pig Pen, and Germany is Peppermint Patty. What I really want to know, is if the US is Lucy, wth is Charlie Brown? Canada?