Nuclear Proliferation Saves Lives?

[sbeaulieu]

Both examples do level the playing field, Dan. I guess it comes down to intent (how) and agenda (why).

~ Shane

[dan2100]

Both examples do level the playing field, Dan. I guess it comes down to intent (how) and agenda (why).

I'm not sure intent and agenda are separable in that way, but I think there's a problem with this in that intentions and agendas can change. True, they are probably the most important things to know -- yet they're not only malleable, but hard to figure out in most cases. Why? Because it's hard to know what someone's intentions and agenda are, especially on the international stage -- and not simply because of noise or the usual difficulties but also as actors on this stage often want to deliberate hide these from others. (This can work both ways. Leaders might openly state a peaceful agenda whilst planning and readying for an attack. Or they can talk war while not only not planning for it, but also hoping that the tough talk will either deter others or play to allies and domestic audiences.)

Going back to change, one merely has to look at history to see how intentions and agendas can radically change. A recent example seems to have been the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which, it seems, was "greenlighted" by the Bush Administration at that time. I doubt this is a case where that administration was hiding its intentions -- hoping to get Iraq to do something in hopes of later fighting a war against it.

Getting back to nuclear proliferation, the best condition for this would be one where the intentions and agendas always ended up being deterrences or defensive ones, such as this nation, group, or individual upon acquiring nuclear weapons feels very secure and no longer has, if it ever had, bellicose intentions or a revisionist agenda -- and this "locks in" so that the nuclear weapons possessor doesn't change its intentions or agenda. Lemennicier seems to argue this is the likely outcome. I'm not so sure.

[anthony]

People,

All this war talk is making me nervous. What got all these sabre-rattling threads going, anyway?

Perhaps the arms deals with Russia.

Or some very justifiable fear about the state of the world.

Or, maybe, when spring comes, a man's thoughts turn to the battlefield.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

People,

All this war talk is making me nervous. What got all these sabre-rattling threads going, anyway?

Perhaps the arms deals with Russia.

Or some very justifiable fear about the state of the world.

Or, maybe, when spring comes, a man's thoughts turn to the battlefield.

Tony

How about the fact that we are currently at war? Jihadi groups have committed and are planning to commit further acts of war against our country. We have already had our "Pearl Harbor" in this war, the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. The fight is on. Get with the program.

We are in the midst are the Armegedon between the Believers (the dar al Salaam) and the q'firs (the dar al Harb) that the Prophet (puss and blisters upon him) declared in his version of -Mein Kampf-, to wit the "holy" q'ran.

Judge Judy once said she knew when a dog pissed on her leg, that it wasn't raining out. May be we should know that when a comandeered plainload of innocent passengers is crashed into one of our buildings that we don't have Peace out there.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

People,

All this war talk is making me nervous. What got all these sabre-rattling threads going, anyway?

Perhaps the arms deals with Russia.

Or some very justifiable fear about the state of the world.

Or, maybe, when spring comes, a man's thoughts turn to the battlefield.

Tony

How about the fact that we are currently at war? Jihadi groups have committed and are planning to commit further acts of war against our country. We have already had our "Pearl Harbor" in this war, the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. The fight is on. Get with the program.

We are in the midst are the Armegedon between the Believers (the dar al Salaam) and the q'firs (the dar al Harb) that the Prophet (puss and blisters upon him) declared in his version of -Mein Kampf-, to wit the "holy" q'ran.

Judge Judy once said she knew when a dog pissed on her leg, that it wasn't raining out. May be we should know that when a comandeered plainload of innocent passengers is crashed into one of our buildings that we don't have Peace out there.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And a good morning to you too, Baal!

Accept this :- that I know about, and care about, what happens with respect to the USA, about 19,000 times more than you care and know for the fate of my country.

May your nation triumph over all its present problems. But may it do this with dignity and self-esteem, and respect for life.

I may be in the minority out here, but there IS a number of non-Americans, who look to you for courageous inspiration.

Please, for godsake, cease being so fearful.

What you do not do in the immediate future, could have more impact than what you do. Knee-jerk reactions, and 'over-kill', and actions without principle, are not the American way.

Tony

[tjohnson]

And a good morning to you too, Baal!

Accept this :- that I know about, and care about, what happens with respect to the USA, about 19,000 times more than you care and know for the fate of my country.

May your nation triumph over all its present problems. But may it do this with dignity and self-esteem, and respect for life.

I may be in the minority out here, but there IS a number of non-Americans, who look to you for courageous inspiration.

Please, for godsake, cease being so fearful.

What you do not do in the immediate future, could have more impact than what you do. Knee-jerk reactions, and 'over-kill', and actions without principle, are not the American way.

Tony

That is truly inspirational Tony.

[BaalChatzaf]

What you do not do in the immediate future, could have more impact than what you do. Knee-jerk reactions, and 'over-kill', and actions without principle, are not the American way.

Tony

Overkill guarantees the kill. Think of how the world would have been if either France anihilated German or German France in the Franco Prussian wars. We never would had either the Great War or the Second World War.

Overkill like Greed is Good.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

What you do not do in the immediate future, could have more impact than what you do. Knee-jerk reactions, and 'over-kill', and actions without principle, are not the American way.

Tony

Overkill guarantees the kill. Think of how the world would have been if either France anihilated German or German France in the Franco Prussian wars. We never would had either the Great War or the Second World War.

Overkill like Greed is Good.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm amazed by the terrorist logic. This is like arguing if you only commit genocide today, you will avoid a bigger genocide tomorrow. By this reasoning, why not nuke as much of the planet now? It'll kill off many innocents, but probably get most of the supposed bad guys... Geez!

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm amazed by the terrorist logic. This is like arguing if you only commit genocide today, you will avoid a bigger genocide tomorrow. By this reasoning, why not nuke as much of the planet now? It'll kill off many innocents, but probably get most of the supposed bad guys... Geez!

Think of it as the terrorism of The Good against the The Evil. Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

I'm amazed by the terrorist logic. This is like arguing if you only commit genocide today, you will avoid a bigger genocide tomorrow. By this reasoning, why not nuke as much of the planet now? It'll kill off many innocents, but probably get most of the supposed bad guys... Geez!

Think of it as the terrorism of The Good against the The Evil. Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again, this is no defense of liberty you're offering, but merely terrorism -- and terrorism is bad because it targets innocents. You don't seem to mind that -- as long as you can imagine it serving some greater good. But isn't that the argument of all terrorists? I have yet to see any terrorist group argue they're commiting terrorist acts not to serve some ultimate greater good. (This is likewise always the argument of people who want to take away liberty: it's for some greater purpose. You here are no different in my eyes.)

[Aaron]

Of course, it wasn't that Napoleon III went too soft on the Germans by not murdering them when he had the chance. The German states simply kicked France's ass in the Franco-Prussian war.

Now I'm just waiting for the wish of 'if only the Mongols had continued their campaign across Europe, it would have preventing all the awful conflicts that followed'.

Aaron

Edited April 16, 2010 by Aaron

[Christopher]

Obviously the question of whether nuclear proliferation is good is a mathematical question. As follows:

% chance no use of nuclear weapons * lives saved - % chance of nuclear war * lives cost = total value

Life is still the primary value, and the benefits have to be weighed against the potential risks involved.

Chris

[Martin Radwin]

I'm amazed by the terrorist logic. This is like arguing if you only commit genocide today, you will avoid a bigger genocide tomorrow. By this reasoning, why not nuke as much of the planet now? It'll kill off many innocents, but probably get most of the supposed bad guys... Geez!

Think of it as the terrorism of The Good against the The Evil. Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again, this is no defense of liberty you're offering, but merely terrorism -- and terrorism is bad because it targets innocents. You don't seem to mind that -- as long as you can imagine it serving some greater good. But isn't that the argument of all terrorists? I have yet to see any terrorist group argue they're commiting terrorist acts not to serve some ultimate greater good. (This is likewise always the argument of people who want to take away liberty: it's for some greater purpose. You here are no different in my eyes.)

It's nice that Ba'al has finally admitted that what he advocates is terrorism. Only he justifies it by labeling it as "the terrorism of The Good against The Evil". Of course, to Ba'al, the US is always good, and anyone who opposes the US in any conflict is always evil. I have never once seen Ba'al acknowledge that the US was in the wrong in any military conflict in which it has ever been engaged. The US is his tribe, and he's going to defend it no matter what evidence exists that his tribe is in the wrong. So he always ends up justifying any attrocities committed by the US in war, no matter what the circumstances surrounding the war, no matter how unjustified the US engagement in the war. This is the ultimate insanity of American exceptionalism.

Martin

[dan2100]

Obviously the question of whether nuclear proliferation is good is a mathematical question. As follows:

% chance no use of nuclear weapons * lives saved - % chance of nuclear war * lives cost = total value

Life is still the primary value, and the benefits have to be weighed against the potential risks involved.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. I think this might oversimplify things and doesn't really tell us how lives are saved. The general idea that seems go along with proliferation working to save lives is that armed conflicts in toto are avoid between nuclear powers. That might seem to be captured by your equation, but each part of the equation would be much more complicated in my view. The "% chance of nuclear war * lives cost," for example, doesn't mean much. What sorts of nuclear wars are likely and what are the likely lives lost for each sort? Just assuming there's one type of nuclear war and putting figures on this -- its likelihood and the numbers of lives likely lost -- oversimplifies in the extreme.

And even the avoidance of armed conflicts seems hard to quantify and is likely complicated. The US-Soviet "Cold War," for example, still had armed conflicts, though it seems that both sides possessed significant nuclear arsenals prevent a total war of the sort that happened earlier in the 20th century between great powers. The same seems true of the India-Pakistan conflict. It appears far less likely now that Pakistan has some nuclear weapons that there will be a large scale conflict between India and Pakistan.

Finally, this is all just a guess. There's no reliable method, in my mind, to actually figure out these percentages. So, the equation, to me, seems to cover up for a lack of knowledge rather than reveal anything profound. Don't you agree? (This certainly applies to Lemennicier's model too.)

[Christopher]

Obviously the question of whether nuclear proliferation is good is a mathematical question. As follows:

% chance no use of nuclear weapons * lives saved - % chance of nuclear war * lives cost = total value

Life is still the primary value, and the benefits have to be weighed against the potential risks involved.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. I think this might oversimplify things and doesn't really tell us how lives are saved. The general idea that seems go along with proliferation working to save lives is that armed conflicts in toto are avoid between nuclear powers. That might seem to be captured by your equation, but each part of the equation would be much more complicated in my view. The "% chance of nuclear war * lives cost," for example, doesn't mean much. What sorts of nuclear wars are likely and what are the likely lives lost for each sort? Just assuming there's one type of nuclear war and putting figures on this -- its likelihood and the numbers of lives likely lost -- oversimplifies in the extreme.

And even the avoidance of armed conflicts seems hard to quantify and is likely complicated. The US-Soviet "Cold War," for example, still had armed conflicts, though it seems that both sides possessed significant nuclear arsenals prevent a total war of the sort that happened earlier in the 20th century between great powers. The same seems true of the India-Pakistan conflict. It appears far less likely now that Pakistan has some nuclear weapons that there will be a large scale conflict between India and Pakistan.

Finally, this is all just a guess. There's no reliable method, in my mind, to actually figure out these percentages. So, the equation, to me, seems to cover up for a lack of knowledge rather than reveal anything profound. Don't you agree? (This certainly applies to Lemennicier's model too.)

I wasn't really aiming to build a doctoral thesis off the equation. I wanted to point out that it is rather short-sighted for individuals to claim the benefits of nuclear proliferation (i.e. nuclear stasis) without taking into account the additional probability of a nuclear confrontation. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

[dan2100]

Obviously the question of whether nuclear proliferation is good is a mathematical question. As follows:

% chance no use of nuclear weapons * lives saved - % chance of nuclear war * lives cost = total value

Life is still the primary value, and the benefits have to be weighed against the potential risks involved.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. I think this might oversimplify things and doesn't really tell us how lives are saved. The general idea that seems go along with proliferation working to save lives is that armed conflicts in toto are avoid between nuclear powers. That might seem to be captured by your equation, but each part of the equation would be much more complicated in my view. The "% chance of nuclear war * lives cost," for example, doesn't mean much. What sorts of nuclear wars are likely and what are the likely lives lost for each sort? Just assuming there's one type of nuclear war and putting figures on this -- its likelihood and the numbers of lives likely lost -- oversimplifies in the extreme.

And even the avoidance of armed conflicts seems hard to quantify and is likely complicated. The US-Soviet "Cold War," for example, still had armed conflicts, though it seems that both sides possessed significant nuclear arsenals prevent a total war of the sort that happened earlier in the 20th century between great powers. The same seems true of the India-Pakistan conflict. It appears far less likely now that Pakistan has some nuclear weapons that there will be a large scale conflict between India and Pakistan.

Finally, this is all just a guess. There's no reliable method, in my mind, to actually figure out these percentages. So, the equation, to me, seems to cover up for a lack of knowledge rather than reveal anything profound. Don't you agree? (This certainly applies to Lemennicier's model too.)

I wasn't really aiming to build a doctoral thesis off the equation. I wanted to point out that it is rather short-sighted for individuals to claim the benefits of nuclear proliferation (i.e. nuclear stasis) without taking into account the additional probability of a nuclear confrontation. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

I think some in the "proliferation is not so bad" crowd already do so. I think the argument is usually the proliferation makes nuclear war and even conventional less likely -- that the less of a monopoly or oligopoly in nuclear arms increases the cost of warfare, nuclear or conventional. And, to give them their due, the last several decades of increasing proliferation -- the "hindsight" we now have, as limited as it might be -- seems to weigh in their favor. I.e., as more nations have acquired such weapons, there hasn't been the feared nuclear exchange.

Of course, this could be just mean that current nuclear powers are not all that bellicose and some future member of the "nuclear club" might be very different.