Could you please provide some explanation for the link? "“I worked for a president, Ronald Reagan, who understood that [the need for 'leverage'] brilliantly, and that’s how he won the Cold War. You need to appear to be unpredictable." Does this warrant having any military option that another nation is capable of? What if NK, Iran, or China developed chemical weapons so powerful that, if used, every person on earth would die, would the need for "leverage" require producing such weapons as well? And in order to be "unpredictable," do nations willing to use terrorist or torturous tactics need to see us using them as well (as, for instance, at Abu Ghraib)? I don't appreciate the flippancy of the article (or, presumably, the current administration's dealings) in dealing with the potential deaths of millions of people.
First, it makes no sense for anyone but maniacs to develop weapons that would kill every single person on Earth, as that would kill themselves too. Nations don't seek that--but they do seek to kill as many of their enemies as possible.
Secondly, it doesn't matter if you're concerned about people thinking of killing millions of people. There are thousands of people who really are, at this moment, plotting ways to kill as many enemies as possible, and it is therefore irresponsible of governments to not address the reality of this situation.
Third, mutally assured destruction is a deterrent and worked during the Cold War precisely because the USSR knew they would be destroyed if they used their nuclear weapons they would die too. In the same way, the US wouldn't nuke the USSR because the USSR would be able to retaliate against us in the same manner. This DID result in neither country having the willingness to use nuclear arms as first strike.
Could you please provide some explanation for the link?
ReplyDelete"“I worked for a president, Ronald Reagan, who understood that [the need for 'leverage'] brilliantly, and that’s how he won the Cold War. You need to appear to be unpredictable." Does this warrant having any military option that another nation is capable of? What if NK, Iran, or China developed chemical weapons so powerful that, if used, every person on earth would die, would the need for "leverage" require producing such weapons as well? And in order to be "unpredictable," do nations willing to use terrorist or torturous tactics need to see us using them as well (as, for instance, at Abu Ghraib)? I don't appreciate the flippancy of the article (or, presumably, the current administration's dealings) in dealing with the potential deaths of millions of people.
First, it makes no sense for anyone but maniacs to develop weapons that would kill every single person on Earth, as that would kill themselves too. Nations don't seek that--but they do seek to kill as many of their enemies as possible.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it doesn't matter if you're concerned about people thinking of killing millions of people. There are thousands of people who really are, at this moment, plotting ways to kill as many enemies as possible, and it is therefore irresponsible of governments to not address the reality of this situation.
Third, mutally assured destruction is a deterrent and worked during the Cold War precisely because the USSR knew they would be destroyed if they used their nuclear weapons they would die too. In the same way, the US wouldn't nuke the USSR because the USSR would be able to retaliate against us in the same manner. This DID result in neither country having the willingness to use nuclear arms as first strike.