Scott did a nice job critiquing the structure of the Gusterson article, but I wanted to look at one of the arguments that the article raises. Can the spread of nuclear weapons to all be a deterrent? The thinking behind this notion is that if everyone has nukes it is less likely that anyone will use them because the will fear a second strike or MAD. Although the article is focused on the international realm, it reminds me of the current debate about arming all school teachers or allowing all students to carry guns on college campuses in Idaho. In the case of these domestic debates, the suggestion has been to allow anyone who qualifies to carry a concealed weapon. I am not sure if this is meant to be a deterrent to would be school shooters (who are already not rational actors and therefore could not be relied on to make a rational calculation) or if it is intended to just allow a teacher to be in a position to shoot at an assailant and thereby end the blood shed. Assuming the objective is to deter then shouldn't weapons be out in the open. Why allow concealed weapons that only encourage risk taking?
In Gusterson's list of countries that have nuclear weapons he includes Israel. It has become rather fashionable to lump Israel in with the list of nuclear countries but unlike the other 8 countries (North Korea needs to be added to Gusterson's list) Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and its leaders are in the habit of insisting that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East". So what is the connection here? What does Israel gain by not acknowledging its nuclear weapons? Does this make Israel more or less legitimate in the international community? They never signed the NPT so are not in violation of any treaties. What does Israel stand to lose by confirming what everyone already believes?
Is it even possible to think about MAD and not make a reference to Dr. Strangelove?
This is a repost, since it appears my first effort never loaded. First, I don't think any nuclear conversation can avoid Dr. Strangelove. Just look at the title of my blog for this week. Second, I like the comparison of concealed carry with the argument for nuclear proliferation. If it's supposed to be a deterrent, everyone needs to know you have it and can use it. You want the rational person to never even consider something. By not acknowledging a capability, you are indicating that you may or may not be able to do whatever it is. This is much more intended to get inside a potential adversaries decision making process, to force indecision. Third, all this pre-supposes the potential adversary is, in fact, rational. And not just rational, but rational in a way that I determine to be rational. If you and I don't think in a similar manner due to cultural differences, how do I know that your definition for rationality values the same things mine does. I may determine that civilian casualties in my country are not acceptable, but you may decide that a certain level of civilian deaths is, if it advances my goals. If people aren't operating from the same playbook, rationality goes right out the window.
Although its a scary thought, I understand the syllogism here, Amit. One can compare the instability of young teenage minds to that of an adversary in possession of a nuclear weapon. At the same time older, more responsible adults in the situation have provisions to carry weapons with the precondition that are accountable in a legal culture that is different from that of the child (ie. UK, United States, more politically stable nations) vs (ie. Cuba, Iraq, North Korea) But, don't you suppose that rational teachers, administrators, and community leaders use their authority figure differently when policing the school grounds? The way in which teachers are supposed to be more stable --with lived experiences and developed rationale, I wouldn't want to ascribe those same traits to the US or the UK. The relationship is more like young teenager vs. older less unstable young adult dynamic as opposed to the experienced 'teacher' . As much as I recognize their influences in the free world, who is really doing the policing internationally? Who takes on that community leader role.
This is a repost, since it appears my first effort never loaded.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't think any nuclear conversation can avoid Dr. Strangelove. Just look at the title of my blog for this week.
Second, I like the comparison of concealed carry with the argument for nuclear proliferation. If it's supposed to be a deterrent, everyone needs to know you have it and can use it. You want the rational person to never even consider something.
By not acknowledging a capability, you are indicating that you may or may not be able to do whatever it is. This is much more intended to get inside a potential adversaries decision making process, to force indecision.
Third, all this pre-supposes the potential adversary is, in fact, rational. And not just rational, but rational in a way that I determine to be rational. If you and I don't think in a similar manner due to cultural differences, how do I know that your definition for rationality values the same things mine does. I may determine that civilian casualties in my country are not acceptable, but you may decide that a certain level of civilian deaths is, if it advances my goals. If people aren't operating from the same playbook, rationality goes right out the window.
Although its a scary thought, I understand the syllogism here, Amit. One can compare the instability of young teenage minds to that of an adversary in possession of a nuclear weapon. At the same time older, more responsible adults in the situation have provisions to carry weapons with the precondition that are accountable in a legal culture that is different from that of the child (ie. UK, United States, more politically stable nations) vs (ie. Cuba, Iraq, North Korea) But, don't you suppose that rational teachers, administrators, and community leaders use their authority figure differently when policing the school grounds? The way in which teachers are supposed to be more stable --with lived experiences and developed rationale, I wouldn't want to ascribe those same traits to the US or the UK. The relationship is more like young teenager vs. older less unstable young adult dynamic as opposed to the experienced 'teacher' . As much as I recognize their influences in the free world, who is really doing the policing internationally? Who takes on that community leader role.
ReplyDeleteLove the video and the fact Amit that you do such a great job of pulling in real-life examples. Thank you!
ReplyDelete