Nuclear/chemical weapons

Economics Economics Questions
61

MacFall, Stranger and Inquisitor have answered thoroughly enough I think.

This talk of destroying the world is ridiculously overblown. As I pointed out, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett put together could never destroy the world. If we stick with back-of-envelope estimates, we’d concede that they could, say, destroy New York–which is indeed “millions”. But at that point the two richest men in the world are flat broke, guaranteed to be caught and executed, and the crisis is over. I’ll take that any day over, say, Stalin starving roughly the same number of kulaks, and then going on to kill millions more.

Today, compare 9/11 with its 300 dead to the subsequent war with its hundreds of thousands dead, and the same applies. I’d rather have a few 9/11s a year, without the government-sponsored killing sprees. Millions of lives would be saved. But it gets better! 9/11 itself was retaliation against government killing in the Middle East. Abolishing the government would have saved thousands of lives(admittedly, lives of brownish Muslims) AND averted 9/11.

And finally, you keep ignoring my primary observation: people, we, don’t like to be nuked. They will not, contrary to your alarmist fantasies, allow delivery vans full of nukes to crisscross the city. The road’s owners will forbid it. And not to repeat my earlier post, people will, with great unanimity, resist and oppose such threats. Today we fall for the absurd ruse of expressing our aversion to them by urging our masters to make more.

–Len

(EDIT: Dang forum software doesn’t work right on iPhones. Dang-old paragraphs.)

62

I never said that the world would be destroyed, only that it would be possible for a person or organization to find a nuke and use it; you yourself said that a nuke or whatever can cost as little as 30 million.Certainly an Al-Qaeda or a mafia or anyone of a number of terrorist organizations or individuals could afford such a nuke. However the question is again irrelevant; a situation where nukes might be available to a few people could arise. It is his situation, the situation I “understand” that we are in now; which we are concerned with. The question is what the nr libertarian response would be in that situation.

As for the second question, you misunderstand what I’m saying. I support a noninterventionist foreign policy; there is nothing inherent in government which makes them war-mongering. It is possible to have a government which, while outlawing the possesion of nukes, nevertheless is peaceful in its endeavors. I’m not arguing for the current state over anarchy, but instead for a noninterventionist minarchy over anarchy.

And for the third paragraph, you seem to be accepting mob aggression to initiate force to remove a nuke. So you consider this morally correct, even Though it violates your sacred non-aggression principle. This is the inconsistency. Here the mob initiates force, just like a government. This according to your ethics should be outlawed. To allow this type of behavior simply concedes that a full non-aggression world cannot prevent itself against nukes. By being unable to initiate force, people are unable to prevent other people from initiating force. So do you wish to be inconsistent, or do you wish to concede that a society in which the nonaggression axiom is fully enforced is not necessarily the best for the people? The choice is yours.

63

It’s really important that you understand what’s really involved in getting a nuke. They aren’t sitting on shelves in Walmart under a sign that says, “$30 Million! Always Low Prices!”

The unit cost includes billions in fixed overhead setting up factories, assembly lines, etc. It’s only that low because they’re made in large quantities. But without the DoD, there is no nuclear weapons industry, no wholesale market, and hence no suppliers for Walmart’s “Nuke” section. Our hypothetical madman has to build the factories, tool up the assembly lines, hire the workers, build silos and bunkers, pay for maintenance, and staff his silo with people willing to push the big red button–but whom he can trust not to launch it without his orders, or blackmail him, or target San Francisco just for kicks.

Some of those costs you’re ignoring because you’re overlooking that the US buys nukes in bulk, and that’s something the world’s richest men can’t afford. And other costs you’re ignoring because they’re sunk costs: manpower is a non-issue when you have an armed force that employs millions; trust is not an issue when you can use triply-redundant systems and can court-martial the disobedient and have them shot; testing grounds and silos aren’t an issue when you own billions of dollars worth of property; maintenance is not an issue when you have the aforementioned slave labor and a bottomless budget and access to printing presses; etc.

Another problem is the casual assumptions you’re making about this guy. Our hypothetical madman is rich enough to afford nukes, which means he has considerable capitol. But he’s crazy enough to want to kill millions of people. He made billions in business by convincing people to give him money, but wants simultaneously to lose those billions with no hope of recouping the loss while killing people en masse. So he’s smart and sane while at the same time being incredibly insane and/or suicidal.

Note that you aren’t describing Bin Ladin! First, he’s only worth 300 million–less today, since that was his worth before his assets were seized after 9/11. That might be enough to get a bomb or two, but it isn’t enough to spin up production on an arsenal, let alone pay for silos, etc. So he isn’t rich enough. He also isn’t crazy enough: he attacked the US in retaliation for its past interventions in the Middle East, and present military bases on the Saudi peninsula. Without such provocation, he wouldn’t have perpetrated 9/11, and would undoubtedly have found much more effective ways to spend $300 million advancing Islam than in building one or two bombs which would horrify the world’s one billion muslims to such a degree that any spiritual influence on his brethren would be nullified. You aren’t describing Bin Ladin–you’re describing a comic-book supervillain.

And finally, you’re ignoring the fact, repeated several times now, that people don’t want to be nuked. Free-market, civilian anti-proliferation organizations are guaranteed to exist–and unlike government, they won’t build nukes in order to oppose nukes. They’ll make contractual arrangements with uranium exporters to facilitate “open-source” public monitoring of large purchases. They’ll villify the hell out of Warren Buffett as soon as he starts building his enrichment plant, which will result in boycotts and divestment leaving him flat broke–because remember, Buffett can’t print more money, or arrest people for revealing his “state secrets,” or command legions of cops to tase people. He’ll be ruined, his neighbors will stop speaking to him, security agencies and insurers will drop him. And that’s only the legitimate response; Buffett would then have every reason to fear unstable or terrified persons assassinating him–which, recall, he has no army to prevent. Privatized non-proliferation is not only possible; it’s relatively uncomplicated.

Finally finally, remember your hypothetical supervillain? Would you rather he manages to pull together a conspiracy to build a handful of nukes from scratch, or would you rather see him become president of the United States? After all, you’ve hypothesized that he’s fabulously wealthy, successful in business, and completely insane. He can surely get himself the presidency. If George W can do it, any filthy-rich psycho with a folksy manner can do it.

–Len.

64

On a separate note, this statement is false:

Do you carry a firearm? If not, I strongly urge you to do so. It’s probably legal where you live, since your timezone suggests you’re in the midwest (hopefully not Illinois!). Get the permit, take the NRA training course and a tactical pistol course, buy a handgun and start carrying it at all times. A good place to get started is Greg Perry’s essay, Don’t bring Ayn Rand to a gunfight.

OK, why is your statement false? And why the digression? Because if you take my advice, you’ll learn that self-defense doesn’t involve waiting for yourself to be shot before shooting back. The critical bit to realize is that the non-aggression principle forbids not only initiating force, but threatening to do so. Somewhere in the gray zone between threatening to blow my head off, and actually doing so, is where you’ll find yourself the proud new owner of two holes in the chest and one in the head. You don’t get one free shot in order to prove you’ve initiated the aggression.

You’ll also learn another important thing. Having a firearm isn’t a threat. Telling me by email that you’re going to punch me in the nose isn’t a threat. Saying, “I’m going to shoot you in the dupa!” isn’t a threat, if you don’t have a gun. If I so much as draw a firearm, in any of those situations, I’m guilty of assault. In short, you’ll learn the all-important difference between things you consider scary, and actual threats. US law does a half-decent job, in most jurisdictions, of reflecting the nonaggression principle.

–Len.

65

How is it inconsistent with the non-aggression principle to say that many individuals will not associate with someone trying to create a nuclear weapon?

66

Good catch Inquisitor! Miksirhc, paragraphs are your friend.

It’s aggression to hit you, or threaten to do so. It’s aggression to shoot your dog, or steal your car. It’s not aggression to kick you out of my store. If I own the electric plant, it’s not aggression to cancel your contract and stop supplying power. If I own the road, it’s not aggression to ban you from my property. If I own the fire department, it’s not aggression to return your money and inform you that we aren’t responding to fires at your home. If I provide your home insurance, it’s not aggression to drop you.

If you never considered that before, DO! You will soon learn to quail before the incredible potency of non-aggressive action.

–Len.

67

The prohibition of states from using them would have saved real lives, as opposed to the hypothetical lives you’re talking about. So far as I remember, they’ve been used twice that we’re sure of, possibly a couple more times - and in each case, by states. How many private individuals have produced and used them? Why exactly should I be more concerned about some hypothetical individual spending his own money to acquire nuclear weapons, than I am about a massive organization with the ability to extract wealth from millions of people, acquiring them?

68

I would. There is no evidence that making marijuana illegal has reduced its use. I think it is pretty well-known how easy it is to come by as well.

I am pretty sure the reason governments are the only ones that possess wmd’s is because of their extremely high cost, unlike marijuana, which costs next to nothing as compared to the cost of wmd’s.

So I guess the question should be, if wmd’s became “affordable”, should they be legal? I would say the answer is yes.

Just like the proliferation of guns makes the world “safer”, so has the proliferation of wmd’s. The U.S. does not threaten anyone who has wmd’s. Instead, we negotiate with them. Only those without wmd’s are attacked or harrassed.

69

This is a classic false analogy, in which you are equating weapons against which there is an ad hoc defense, and which are NOT weapons of mass destruction, with weapons against which the only defense is preemption and which, by their nature, once released by a single act will cause mass destruction.

It doesn’t matter whether anyone refers to them as WMD, “defense” systems, or any other innoccuous terms; things are what they are, regardless. Talk is cheap for those who have nothing “on the line” depending on the outcome of the question..

70

This completely misses the point of my argument. First, you must admit that it is possible for a situation to arise in which a man has the ownership of a nuclear weapon, irrespective of whether or not a government exists. There is no way to aprioristically prove, using the Austrian methodology (of which I’m sure you approve) that such a situation is impossible. Such a situation can exist, and it is my sincere belief that it does exist today; however, this is irrelevant to the argument. I’m referring to a situation in which a person owns a nuclear weapon in an anarcho-capitalistic society. This is possible, perhaps not under current conditions (although I would think so), but in the future. The question is whether the NR viewpoint is utilitarian; if it is best for the people. I say no.

We, as economists, make the approximation that people act in order to maximize profit in many of our analyses. That is because the great majority of people do. However, there are those not motivated by monetary profit but by other ends. Certainly their are psychotic people out there. Perhaps this person has a particular beef with a PDA or a town or something. He might have inhereted the money, high might have stolen it. The point is that a person like this could exist. Certainly Hitler was smart and sane and in the end was insane and suicidal. History is filled with figures of people who have crazy ends but who are very adept in their choice of means. To deny so is futile. A crazy person can own a nuclear weapon. It may be difficult, but it is possible. To attempt to prove otherwise is to ignore the Ausrian methodology completely.

Certainly our provocation has resulted in Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s resentment of our country, but don’t think that Bin Laden would not love the chance to get his hands on a nuke. He has declared a lifelong war against the United States.

Again, completely sidestepping the issue. Psychotic people do exist. Suicidal people do exist. There are people out there who would love to kill many people via nukes. Even if you don’t think they exist now, out of some type of ignorance, then you must at least grant that such a person can exist; it is this situation which we must examine.

You don’t need people’s permission to nuke them. We didn’t need ask the people of Hiroshima if they wanted to be nuked before we nuked them. Businesses are only subject to consumer sovereignty when they want to make a profit. A crazy person seeks to profit by killing other people, aka, nuking them. A nuclear-loving Warren Buffett will not be subject to ‘societal pressures’ like boycotts and the like; he wants to kill people. And again, who cares? We’re talking about the possible scenario where a person has a nuclear weapon.

71

OK, I agree with most of this. And my statement doesn’t really contradict what you are saying. What I was trying to point out is that if you consistently uphold the non-agression axiom then you can’t confiscate nuclear weapons before a person uses them. You can try to protect yourself with bomb shelters, or you can threaten retaliation by force (like carrying a pistol) but that won’t change the fact that after the nuke has been launched, millions will die.

72

Sorry, iphone too.

Just to be clear, I’m saying that it is against the non-agression principle to confiscate nuclear weapons, not to do any of these other things. And what is your actual opinion on confiscation of nuclear weapons? Given that a person can possibly own a nuclear weapon (whether now or in the future, you cannot prove that this is impossible), is it justified to confiscate one?

73

Drug laws means a lower supply of drugs at a higher price due to the risk involved transporting it, higher price means less demand. The law might not change a person’s valuations, but by making the good in question more difficult to obtain, it will change it’s position on the value scale.

So you would uphold the non-agression axiom at all costs, even if it menat that that axiom would be as a result violated on a huge scale? You would uphold your axiom at the cost of millions of lives?

74

Whether or not something was built specifically for mass destruction is irrelevant as to whether or not it should be illegal. It is a completely a subjective reason. The only criteria you are using for making it illegal is that you do not agree with the reason it was built.

People could disagree with the reason almost anything is built, but that is not a valid reason to make it illegal.

75

So I guess what I’m getting at here is as follows:

  1. Regardless of whether it is currently feasible or not (which I believe that it is), it is possible for somebody, even in an anarcho-capitalist society, to own a nuke or biological weapon. There is no way to prove otherwise if you follow the Austrian methodology.

  2. We will examine the possible case in which a man owns a nuke or biological weapon.

  3. NR Libertarians uphold the non-agression axiom at all costs. Therefore, there are two choices. NR Libertarians can either disregard the non-agression axiom, in which case their logic is inconsistent, or they can uphold the axiom.

  4. If they uphold the axiom, then it is again possible that the man could detonate the nuke or deploy the biological weapon, killing millions.

  5. In this case, the strict adherence to the non-agression axiom resulted in the deaths of millions.

76

Just something to keep in mind - deontology and consequentialism are not the only ethical systems out there.

77

No, drug laws may actually drive up the supply of drugs, since it is now more profitable to produce them, given their illegal status.

Price can actually increase some items value. So yes, it may change the position on a value scale, but it does not necessarily reduce supply. Demand/supply may be just as high or higher.

It would cost millions of lives either way. It should be illegal to use it to kill others, but not illegal to purchase wmd’s. That would just make sure they would only be in the hands of those that would actually use them to harm others (i.e. criminals).

78

The conclusion here is not supported since the assumption is, that simply making something illegal will keep it out of the hands of criminals, which it does not.

Supporting the axiom would more likely result in much fewer deaths, since everyone could own them, not just criminals, given what we have seen are the results of making guns illegal in Washington D.C.

79

Stealing is always wrong, if that answers your question. We’re stuck with pitiful methods of persuasion like banning him from the roads (and so imprisoning him in his own house), shutting off his electricity (and thus freezing him to death), and banning him from the grocery store (and so starving him to death). We can always buy the nuke from his heirs after his emacisted, frozen corpse is found.

–Len

80

Your hypothetical is seriously flawed because “what if it WERE feasible” assumes in effect that folks will do what it takes to put cheap nukes on Walmart shelves, and then say, “Holy crap! What have we done? I hope nobody nukes us with these things (on sale this weekend only)!”

My point in saying people don’t WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won’t stock them (because they don’t want to be nuked), and Toshiba won’t make them (because they don’t want to be nuked), and Con Ed won’t breed plutonium (because they don’t want to be nuked), and Niger won’t sell large quantities of uranium to shifty-eyed dudes muttering “death to the infidel!” (because they don’t want to be nuked), and likewise makers of fancy centrifuges for the same reason, etc.

The things I mentioned above would be handled by contractual arrangements and other voluntary means, spearheaded by insurers–remember, Buffett’s General Reinsurance lost two billion on 9/11 to supercatastrophe policies. I summed it all up as “private anti-proliferation organizations.”

–Len