John, thanks for your rational and polite response to my Doing Without Killing list (
Message 19418511 )
4. A strict No First Use policy by all nuclear powers.
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?
<2) Seoul - North Korea has sufficient artillery to accomplish the equivalent of a large scale nuke attack. The only defense is to launch a series of tactical nukes to take out the artillery.>
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.
<3) Taiwan - The only effective response to a Chinese threat is a Nuclear umbrella >
20 years from now, you'll be correct. Today, though, China does not have a Blue Water Navy. U.S. conventional air and sea power can easily destroy any Chinese force attempting a crossing of the Formosa Straits. Fortunately, both sides in this dispute are acting rationally, so the chance of this escalating to a nuclear exchange, is small. For now.
<4) Other WMD - since we disavowed Chemical and Bio weapons, we now equate them with Nukes and respond to those attacks with our Nuclear deterrent.>
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).
<5. Embargoes, sanctions, blockades, to punish proliferators. Hasn't worked so well to date.>
Agreed. I'm saying the civilized nations of the world need to start making it work, as an alternative to using WMD or trying to invade and garrison hostile populations. We need to establish a list of unacceptable actions, and a procedure for Shunning nation-states that break the rules. Exile from the Global Village, total non-cooperation, is (theoretically) a powerful deterrent. Embargoes would work if we could get all the major trading nations of the world, to agree ahead of time, to stop all trade of all kind, with any nation that (for instance) uses chemical weapons or does ethnic cleansing. If Iraq had not been able to sell a drop of oil since they first used chemical weapons, or if N. Korea had not been able to import a drop of oil since they started re-processing their spent fuel rods, we would have seen Regime Change or capitulation, by both regimes.
<How exactly do you reconcile respecting sovereignty with not killing minorities or political opponents?>
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.
<How do you deal with a North Korea thats willing to sit in the dark killing its own people rather than play nice?>
I believe in the Principle of Responsibility. Autocrats like Kim and Saddam (and Mao and Hitler and Stalin) can only rule, if millions of their armed subjects follow their orders. That obediance, in the final analysis, is voluntary. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, not because of anything Reagan did (this is another self-congratulatory Myth of the War Party), but because the soldiers refused to fire on their own people, when the Communists ordered it. And because the People, in their millions, came out into the streets and said "I will no longer obey. Give me liberty or give me death." The People of Iraq and N. Korea are not free, because they choose to continue following the orders of Autocrats. It's a Choice, and they are Responsible for their Choice.
<Israel's security can be guaranteed, in the only permanent way possible, by becoming the 51st State in the U.S.>
I conclude this is necessary, because of these numbers:
5M Jews in Israel
300M Arabs
1.3B Muslims
The magnitude of this imbalance, is why the Arabs haven't given up, in spite of an unbroken series of 50 years of military defeats, on the goal of total victory over the Jewish State. In addition, this would just formalize a situation that, de facto, already exists. The 51 States would have a population about equal to all the Arab States combined (and one of these days, they may combine into a New Califate). This, and this alone, will convince them to accept the Jewish 51st State. The U.S. will eventually realise, that there are only 2 choices: annex them, or abandon them.
I assume Israel would accede, the way the EU is gaining 10 new members in 2004: a long negotiation stage, a massive document detailing the agreement, followed by a plebicite. The Treaty of accession could include:
1. the right of Israel to secede, by a majority vote of its people
2. a continuation of the Right of Return for Jews. This is largely a moot point, since 80% of the world's Jews are already in Israel or the U.S.
3. The Israeli armed forces would be kept intact, for now. They could be called the "Israeli National Guard", and kept under the command of the State Governor.
4. An Oath Of Loyalty required, for citizenship and voting rights in the 51st State. This Oath would include a detailed promise to respect all religious and cultural practices. It would guarantee the rights and responsibilities of both Jews and Muslims. Anyone who won't take the Oath, or violates it, isn't a citizen, and can be deported. I know, this is a radical departure, from the current idea that anyone born within the boundaries of a State, or to the citizens of a State, is a citizen, even if they don't observe any of the responsibilities of citizenship.
<Why don't we invite the Pals to become the 51st state?>
For the same reason the Europeans are now figuring out, it was a very bad idea to allow millions of Muslims into their nations. They are un-assimilable. The best way to get along with them, is to leave them alone in their own nation-states. |
