Interesting point. If we hold that
Small arms have been beneficial to personal liberty, and would decrease interpersonal violence in anarchy
States are in anarchy with respect to each other
Then it seems at least plausible that nukes could reduce interstate violence.
Copy all of your posts before you submit them. The forum is very unpredictable today.
We disagree on the essence of the NAP. You hold that verbal, non-immediate (“I’ll nuke you, !”, “I’ll kill Andy one of these days!”) threats are punishable, I hold that only a very immediate threat (a missile being refueled, you pointing your gun at me) can command self-defensive action (but not latter punishment). The only way to see who’s position is nearer to the truth is, as I’ve mentioned a few times before, to see which variation of the rule will result more practical by Insurance Companies to use. This can’t be decided theoretically.
Exactly. I think it can’t be decided theoretically for reasons analogous to why the economy cannot be centrally managed.
The point I was trying to make is that action does not actually have to take place for aggression to occur. Each situation would have to be evaluated individually. If someone has a gun at home and tells me that s/he is going to hunt me down and shoot me if I don’t do give him/her my money, that could still be considered a threat, and therefore aggression. Would you not agree?
Actually not. People are full of bs and as an insurer I wouldn’t pay a single penny to cover the supposed “liability” of a guy who threatened you along the lines you brought forward. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t pay a single penny to anyone who threatens anybody else, be it an immediate threat. Threatening somebody allows the “offended” party only to act in self-defense, NOT to retaliate afterwards, and it is precisely to give up his right to retaliate that I’m paying the offended party.
How do you tell apart a “WMD” that is pointed at someone and a “WMD” that is not pointed at someone? What would be the difference?
Starting a countdown to launch.
OK. I don’t see how insurance has anything to do with this situation, but whatever. I thought we were talking about what would legally be considered aggression.
My point was just that there’s no such thing as a “legal” standard. Our standard of what is punishable and what isn’t can only be inferred by looking at a functioning Liability Insurance (or Arbitration) market, and checking out what standard of punishable conduct turns out profitable for them to operate upon. It’s just my way of guessing what is “legal”.
Thus, a gang of Iranians (having nuclear weapons) in a potential anarchist commonwealth making a verbal nuclear threat to a predominantly Israeli city (say, Tel-Aviv) probably wouldn’t be considered “punishable” along these lines, just as those same Iranian gangs refueling mobile ballistic missile positions BUT NOT LAUNCHING AFTERWARDS would not entitle Tel-Aviv citizens to a payment by any Insurer, but would likewise allow for no payment to Iranian gangsters should those Tel-Aviv citizens decide to hire someone to nuke those positions in immediate self-defense (until they have been disarmed). That’s how I feel about the issue of WMDs breaking moral standards by their mere existence.
The question is what is considered aggression? That is what we are talking about here. It doesn’t matter if you own an insurance agency or not.
I don’t know that a verbal threat would necessarily be considered aggression. It might though, depending on the situation.
You seem to believe that people can transfer rights to a government or agent. If the structure is 100% voluntary, then I could see how this might apply, though it’s a stretch and the individuals still maintain their rights. I wouldn’t go as far to say that the organization itself has rights.
A simple test: Does an individual under such a government structure have the freedom to leave the organization? In terms of States, individuals who opt out are either imprisoned or even executed. Since the subject deals with governments in terms of national governments such as Iran, then we can dispense with the mythical government where it is 100% voluntary.
The U.S. is a Republic of popularly elected representatives (at least Congress and the Senate). The President of the U.S. is elected by an electoral college, with electorates assigned by the states in different ways (some by popular vote, some all or nothing). The U.S. is not at all a Democracy.
There is nothing legitimate in the use of force or coercion to provide services, no matter how beneficial those services may seem. And who determines this framework of rights? Rights for whom? The People? The Government? Applying the test again, if I choose to opt out of the organization, what is the response? If it’s force or coercion, then it is not justified.
Now if you are speaking on the application of force on an aggressor, that is different, however there is nothing to suggest that only the State may do this. In addition, States have abused this power ever since they were given it.
Governments operate on aggression. What they give to one person, they have taken from another.
Links:
Missile Test: http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Iran+Missile&ei=UTF-8
More recent statements from the Pentagon say that there is nothing new in terms of intelligence concerning the new missile. I will say however, that the Pentagon would not report publically on any new intelligence it had on the missile, so such a statement is pretty much meaningless. Any capability Iran has is most definitely classified - old and new.
Neutron Initiator: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece
Since the London Times is the only source I’ve found to be in possession of the leaked classified document, other news agencies are speculating on the content and whether or not the information is legitimate. But this is not the first time Iran has been after this or similar technology.
9/10/2008 IAEA INVESTIGATES THE ACTIVITY OF RUSSIAN SCIENTIST IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPERIMENTS
In October 2008, the IAEA began an investigation into a Russian scientist who allegedly helped Iran conduct nuclear weapons related experiments. The agency obtained a five-page document written in Farsi from undisclosed sources, detailing precision detonator experiments that were allegedly conducted by Iran with the Russian scientist’s help. Iranian officials called the charges “groundless” and insisted that the experiments were for conventional arms. The case has yet to be closed.
Sources:
[1] Elaine Sciolino, “Nuclear Aid by Russian to Iranians Suspected,” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com, 9 October 2008
[2] “Russian Aided Iranian Nuke Research, IAEA Suspects,” Global Security Newswire, gsn.nti.org/gsn, 10 October 2008.
Since documentation of this nature will be classified, it’s hard to show public proof that this is 100% factual.
I do not share your optimism on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
There are two general types of nuclear weapons: tactical and strategic.
While you could possibly use a tactical nuke for defensive purposes, the extreme care that such an act does not extend beyond one’s own property makes this a very ineffective option. In addition, the use of this weapon destroys property, which seems contrary to property rights and self defense. An invading army enters you property - so what? Rather than destroy your own property, and potentially your own life in the process, would it not be more effective to cause the opponent to try and hold the property. You will find that an invading army is very good at killing other armies, but not effective at holding property without the consent of the people. In addition, there are many more effective ways to defend oneself rather than destroy property. The goal is to destroy the invading army, right? Back to the test. If I don’t want my own property to be destroyed or my family to die in the Government’s nuclear response to a convential army invasion, do I have the option to opt out? No, I do not, and my government has performed an act of agression against it’s own people. Calling this a “perfectly libertarian weapon” is offensive, especially since you call for justification of the government to use it.
Strategic nuclear weapons aren’t used for defensive purposes, they are used for retaliation. The only potential just cause for using such a weapon is if you are nuked yourself - at that point self defense is an afterthought. Threatening to use a strategic nuclear weapon is itself an act of aggression and provocation to war.
Nuclear weapons, particularly nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, require that they be armed and targeted. The simple act of arming and targeting a nuke is itself an act of aggression, whether the nukes are tactical or strategic. One need not say anything, the threat is implied by the action. If someone violates the NAP, you are permitted to protect yourself by means that are considered reasonable and proportional. Hopefully you can do so without force.
Your position of the Cold War is quite interesting, but I don’t think you’ve taken into account the real impact of that conflict. While the U.S. and U.S.S.R. did not have very much face to face conflict, the war was prosecuted via proxy. Look at the full extent of this conflict, and I think you’ll see tons of devastation in terms of property and lives. There were several times where this “state of aggression” nearly led to unleashing nuclear devastation on a good part of the planet. The more governments that have nuclear weapons, the greater the potential for a nuclear exchange. Iran is one of those nations who may just pull the trigger.
To clarify. Creating, arming and targeting a nuclear weapon is a violation of the NAP. The discussion on the types and uses of nukes should cover this in more detail.
So let’s put it this way…
You have a neighbor who says he hates you and wants to literally wipe you off the face of the earth. He has bought a gun and is working on acquiring some bullets. He’s found a seller for the bullets, and they should be delivered next week. He’s reiterated that you will die very soon, and if you try to stop him he’s going to kill you with his knife. He has also provided money and support for assassins to kill you, and you have been attacked several times. When he attempts to shoot you, you will have no warning. What do you do? Do you wait until the gun is loaded and pointed at you? Do you wait until he shoots? Or do you already have justification to act?
Non Answer. Whatever the US leaders of the past did, that does not mean the leaders of Iran are not a threat and that them having nukes is a good idea or something to be taken lightly. One nut job hacking someone to death doesn’t mean letting another nut job have a machette is a good idea. Immediate pull out is not necessarily the best option because immediate forgiveness for the policy errors of our forerunners is not forthcoming now, nor likely will be any time soon. A reduction in troops, certainly. An end to overt hostile actions, certainly. Decimating the US’s defensive capabilities when there are people out there, some in positions of state power with armies and stores of weapons at their disposal, to score ethical and moral points with our consciences isn’t necessarily the best option.
Also, extremely naive. If anything, our experience in the middle east should teach us that memories are long and forgiveness is short. The idea that immediate withdrawal of our troops will engender smiles and flowers and waves of forgiveness among the people of the middle east, who themselves are still stuck in a massively statist ideology, is ridiculous. We’ve spent quite a lot of time pissing people off in that region. Yes that was wrong. Yes the right course of action is to pull out, completely in the end. That doesn’t mean just walk out and let the situation go to hell, not to mention leave enemies we’ve already raised and bread with a willing audience and a ready supply of weapons, some of which may be aimed at your home town.
And if you think the full, immediate withdrawal is still the right thing to do despite any dangers, let someone you love be the sacrifice then. Strap your kid, your spouse, one of your parents, or whoever you love most in the world to I’mADinnerJacket’s first nuke and let them be killed for your ethical balm. If you are not willing to do that, you have no right to ask it of others, and they have every right to at least propose a phased withdrawal that leads to an eventual disengagement and nonintervention policy while steal dealing with the reality that we have created for ourselves.
You`re clueless and talking out of your arse.
No, my reply was an appeal to reality, not a theoretical construct of a purely anarcho capitalist society and what would be ideal in such a place. Emotion is a part of life. Many people in the Middle East are emotional, they are pissed. At the US. Any answer that doesn’t at least address that point is incomplete, arm chain theorizing which has a place in a college dorm bull session with no real consequences, not in international policy where a city or few and who knows how many millions of lives are at stake.
Relevance? This is the second time this point has been raised, I have not advocated for a continuance of the state’s aggressive actions. I have said a gradual draw down toward non intervention is best, considering we have spent so much time screwing things up around the world.
The decision is not mine however, so what is or is not clear to me isn’t the issue. The question of whether or not Iran has a ‘right’ to nuclear weapons is not satisfied with a one word answer. There is too much implied and left unsaid no matter which word is given.
I am scared of both of them. Yes, our own state is a threat. ImADinnerJacket is a poweful man near the top of another state, this one controlled by fundamentalist nutjobs hell bent on oppressing their own people, and apparently also desiring long range, massively destructive weapons that can’t be focussed on guilty parties unless your idea of guilty party is Cleveland, New York, Tucson, Portland, etc. Not fearing them is incredibly naive. And however bad our state is, and however poorly used our military is, they are also the ones in the current reality who are capable and likely to defend us should another state get upiddy, even if our state just does it to protect its captive tax base. My two cents is you can and should deal with both issues as a matter of practicality. Our government is a fire that should be put out. So is Iran’s. But as any firefighter will tell you, you can use fire to fight fire sometimes, and when using water or foam you should prioritize where you aim the hose.
For there to be peace, politics must end. Since we aren’t about to witness the end of politics in our lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of our grandchildren, we are sadly resigned to the fact that Governments will behave badly. Governments don’t recognize the NAP.
Whether it’s justified or not, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. In response Israel, the U.S. and other countries may act upon that fact. Hopefully it can be resolved peacefully; I don’t think it will.
I think it is laughable that people think that 1) the U.S. could be threatened by any other government in the world and 2) that bringing the troops home is the same as decimating the U.S. government’s defensive capabilities. The only defensive capabilities the U.S. government needs is nuclear weapons. And since they have them, no one is going to invade the U.S.
Non answer.
Exactly. And if those of us who want to get as close to a truly free society as is possible in this world want any movement in that direction, the ivory tower theorizing has to be backed with practical policy approaches that can get some frigging support in the general population. That means a goal of a draw down of troops within the context of somehow soothing the animosity we’ve spent decades creating in that part of the world, so if Iran does get nukes, they aren’t likely to use them against the US. How the US and the USSR resolved their differences, while not perfect, can at least serve as a model. Continuous diplomatic engagement, common ground movements, weapons reduction, TRADE, however unfree it may be at first, etc. At the very least keep them talking long enough for their own extreme statism to collapse and leave us with a chance for a more reasonable leadership to engage.
who is ‘us’ ?