Jacob,
You can argue that, in the past, the U.S. needed a First Use doctrine, because of inferiority in conventional military power. But, today, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, we have overwhelming superiority in WW2-style war-making. A couple of divisions of our heavy armor, backed up by our airpower, can flatten the conventional forces of every conceivable opponent. So what's the excuse for First Use today?
North Korea with its 'conventional WMD' aimed at Seoul and China with the same vis-a-vis Taiwan. this is also why we could have backed the Landmine treaty, but wouldn't be given an exception on North Korea.
Agreed. I should have said, "No First Use of WMD", instead of "No First Use of Nuclear weapons". And I would define WMD by their indiscriminate destructive power, not by the type of technology. For instance, the anthrax attacks after 9/11 were not a WMD. They were an essentially trivial terror weapon. 20,000 artillery tubes pointed at a large metropolitan area is a WMD. As an arbitrary definition, I'd say a WMD is any weapon, using any technology, that can kill a million people in 24 hours.
Ok we are getting much closer to a similar world view with these statements :-) However be careful - while only 3,000 died at the WTC - 50,000 KIA was intended and with your million number, neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki count.
On Taiwan - I can agree that for now and the immediate future you are correct - but installing hundreds of missiles across the straights is a provocation.
We did nothing, when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1988. We did nothing (because there was no identifiable nation to retaliate against) after the 2001 anthrax attacks. It depends on the scale, I think. If a chemical or biological weapon was used against us, by an identified nation (our Intel better be good on this; random retaliation would be a disaster), and if the body count was in the millions, we would consider a nuclear response. And I'd support that, using the Principle of Strict Reciprocity (and defining WMD by effect, not technology used)..
All the more reason for small tactical nukes. Why take out a whole country, when you could limit (not stop) civilian carnage when targeting the regime? Today's anti nuke protesters (objecting to nuke research) ensure our only response can be complete devastation.
You've identified a real conflict between 2 of my basic Principles. Absolute respect for sovereignty would mean standing aside, while Pol Pot murders most of the population of Cambodia. Absolute enforcement of humanitarian standards would, in practice, mean a return to the 19th Century, with a Benevolent Western Imperialism ruling the planet. Neither extreme is practical or moral. And I seriously doubt, based on our track record, that our Imperialism could be Benevolent. A balance needs to be found, and that balance would be decided by negotiation among the civilized nations.
Civilized Nations whose cooperation is needed, to make my plan work: EU, AngloSphere, China, India, Russia, Japan. Together, that group can enforce anything on the rest of the planet. And if they acted in a disciplined manner, they could enforce the Rules Of Civilized Conduct (which they would define, by group consensus), using entirely non-violent methods.
But Pol Pot did kill a 1/3rd of his population and ruled with absolute control. There was no way for the population to revolt - they were killed for looking the wrong way. The only thing that stopped him was foreign intervention (and to our shame - we were not involved).
Eventually regimes such as Mao and Stalin (and potentially Pol Pot and Hitler had wars not occurred) mellow and become routine and then the population can revolt, but during the revolution - watch out.
Your solution says - write off these people, soverignty is more important.
They (Arabs) are un-assimilable. The best way to get along with them, is to leave them alone in their own nation-states.
Well if you accept this is true we need a crash plan on energy independence and then we can ignore them.
My plan:
Short Term: Drill anwar, drill the coast, relieve air-pollution laws for coal,
Medium (and start today): invest 87 billion in R&D in nuclear and fission research, build a national nuclear plan similar to the French. Replace all coal fired electricity with Nuclear, Hydro and alternative energy. Fuel Cell and hydrogen pushed.
Long term: Fission or other technology as warranted for electricity. Hydrogen or fuel-cells (as economics and technology dictate) for vehicles.
John |
