A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Nuclear weapon

Nuclear Policy

by Leave a Comment

WMD world map
Image via Wikipedia

While some folks have expressed fear, anger and dismay towards the new nuclear policy (or at least their straw man versions), I am not worried.

While the policy does mark what appears to be a significant change, it actually appears to have little practical impact on how we would actually wage war.

The policy is that we will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries. Unless, of course, they are in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (that means, for example, we can still nuke Iran) or they use biological weapons against us. This is, of course, the approach taken by the United States in the post WWII world. After all, we did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Even more importantly, all the major potential threats to the United States (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) are still legitimate targets for nuclear weapons. The countries that are excluded by this policy are hardly major threats to the United States.

Obviously, this policy does not actually change the nuclear weapons so that they can only be used in such situations. Should the United States face a truly dire situation that could only be resolved by nuclear weapons being employed  in a way that violates this policy, then the weapons would certainly be used. While Obama is cast as a weakling socialist, he would not allow the United States to be destroyed just so he could stick with this policy.

Of course, it might be argued that this is a meaningful political change. After all, it seems to have outraged many folks on the right. While much of their alleged outrage is probably mere political posturing, they certainly do seem to think that it is worth attacking. While this does not prove that this is really a meaningful policy change, it does suggest that this might be the case.

Also, it does seem to reflect a change in language and creates the appearance that we are further leashing our nuclear beast. And, as is often said, appearance is (seen as) reality in politics.

As I see it, the change is primarily rhetorical. This is, I think, a smart move. Obama can use the policy to improve how America is seen by the world and score political points without actually reducing America’s security. However, he does run the risk that the Republicans will also use this to score political points, even if they have to attack a straw man version of the policy.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Ah, Republicans.

by Leave a Comment

Clipped version of Gingrich and Lott.jpg, a fi...
Image via Wikipedia

Obama recently changed the United States’ nuclear policy and also signed a weapons treaty with Russia.

The gist of the policy change is that the US will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers (with some exceptions). Interestingly, Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity claimed that under the new policy, the United States cannot respond with nuclear weapons to a massive biological weapon attack. However, this claim shows that these two men are either ignorant of the real policy or simply lying. This is because the policy makes an explicit statement that the United States retains the option of using nuclear weapons in such cases.

If Newt and Hannity are ignorant, then they were acting irresponsibly. After all, they have an obligation to determine the facts before making such claims. This is true of anyone, but as influential public figures (and being on a news program) they have an even greater obligation to get their facts right before making such claims. Naturally, people can miss facts even when acting in good conscience. However, finding out the facts about this policy is a rather easy matter and hence it is reasonable to expect these men to have taken the minuscule effort it would have taken to learn the truth.

If Newt and Hannity knew the truth, but simply lied in order to take shots at Obama and perhaps scare Americans, then they acted in an immoral manner. This, of course, assumes that lying is wrong.  However, if one takes the view that lying for political gain is acceptable, then this would be just fine. However, this would mean that the Democrats would be entitled to operate by the same principle as would the “liberal” media.

On a related note, I also happened to catch a clip of Sarah Palin criticizing this policy. She used an analogy to kids fighting on a school yard and there being one kid who says he will not hit back if attacked. Once again, Obama is not saying that we will not hit back. To make a more appropriate analogy, it is like kids fighting on the schoolyard and the biggest, toughest kid says that he will not use his baseball bat on kids who don’t have them. But, if someone hurls a rock at him, he will use the bat. Or if some kids have boards they want to make into bats, he can use the bat on them.

While I am all in favor of hitting people back, this means that I would be a rather bad Christian. After all, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ‘But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Palin and many Republicans like to claim that they are Christians, so it was interesting to hear her blatantly rejecting what Jesus said.

Naturally, it can be argued that the bible is rather inconsistent and that a Christian does not have to follow that “turn the other cheek” thing. After all, the bible is full of passages justifying and allowing killing. Of course, this same sort of “pick and chose” should be extended to others as well, on the pain of inconsistency. So, for example, folks who want to ignore what the bible allegedly says about same sex marriage should feel as free to ignore that as Palin and other Republicans feel free to ignore other parts of the bible.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Palin, Obama and Iran

by Leave a Comment

Sarah Palin, eleventh governor of Alaska and 2...
Image via Wikipedia

Sarah Palin recently spoke about Iran, Obama and terrorism on Fox News. While we are currently involved in two wars, Palin seems to think that a third war (against Iran) would be something we should do. She said:

“Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.”

While support for Israel does make sense (Israel is a consistent American ally in the region), attacking Iran does not seem to be a very good idea.

Three reasons this would be a bad idea are Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy. In other words,  we are already bogged down in two wars and our economy is in bad shape. Starting up a third war might well be beyond our means. Two factors that tend to break empires are overextending the military and overtaxing the economy. As such, we should give considerable more thought about the matter before sending tanks into Iran.

Of course, it could be argued that the consequences of not attacking Iran will be far worse than then consequences of attacking. People have argued that Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons and hence we must attack them.

Of course, we have never operated on the principle that we will invade countries to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons and it is not clear why Iran should be the exception. Also, if we a adopt the principle if attacking countries who might get nuclear weapons, then it would make sense to also go after those that already have these weapons. However, this does not seem to be a very good idea since it would probably start a nuclear war.

It might be argued that the time to strike is before a country has nuclear weapons. After all, if someone is reaching for a gun, the time to hit him is before he gets to it. It also makes sense to fight people who do not have guns rather than those who do. Likewise with nuclear weapons in place of guns.

This analogy does work well when you know the person reaching for a gun intends to shoot you. If a person is reaching for a gun because so many other people have guns and having one is a status symbol as well as means of deterrence, then attacking seems far less reasonable. After all, attacking will certainly start a war and allowing the person to get his gun unmolested might not lead to a fight. So far this approach has worked-after all, we are currently living with a world on which many folks are toting nuclear weapons. If we can live with them, the argument goes, we can live with a nuclear armed Iran.

However, some folks claim that the leaders of Iran are religious fanatics and that they will start a nuclear war as soon as they can get the weapons.

If this were true, then this would be a matter of great concern. Going back to the gun analogy, if you saw a madman lunging for a gun while screaming about slaughtering all the heretics/infidels/non-believers in the name of Jesus/Allah/Santa Claus, then shooting him before he can grab that gun would probably be a good idea.

This leads to a critical factual issue: are the people who call the shots in Iran crazy religious fanatics who intend to start a nuclear war as soon as they get weapons?

The answer seems to be “no.” While the leaders in Iran talk the religious talk and act in theocratic ways, they seem to be very similar to all leaders: concerned about power, corrupt, and very much interested in the things of this world. As such, it seems unlikely that Iran would switch from being a fairly pragmatic political player to being an apocalyptic madhouse simply because it gets the bomb.

I could, of course, be wrong about this. Maybe they are dreaming of burning the world in nuclear fire for the glory of God. Maybe Obama

Also, there are other reasons to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran, such as their willingness to provide weapons to terrorists. But this possibility must be weighed against the cost of attacking Iran and maintaining a sustained campaign to prevent them from acquiring such weapons. Ironically, launching such an attack could make the United States even less safe by providing even more motivation for terrorism and creating even more fear in the Middle East that America has no qualms about attacking Muslim countries.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does North Korea Want the US to Invade?

by 4 Comments

Map of North Korea
Image via Wikipedia

As I watched the news about North Korea making various threats, I wondered about the motivation of their leaders. While some regard their great leader as a goofball, it would be unwise to let that contempt lead us to mistakes in judgment. While they might be acting in a crazy way, their might be a method to their madness.

The stock answer is that North Korea wants attention and intends to use its bad behavior to gain concessions and aid. That is a reasonable possibility. After all, there is a established pattern of bribing countries to behave better.

One possibility that struck me was that North Korea actually wants us to invade. While this seems like madness, a little consideration shows that this could be a possibility.

One reason to think this is that the great leader might wish to go out in a blaze of glory. A battle with the world could do this. Of course, this assumes a level of madness that seems unlikely. So, let us reject this.

A second reason to think this is that North Korea might gain from a limited engagement with the United States and South Korea. They could very well make some incursions into South Korean territory, do some damage and then claim a victory of sorts. They might even decide to take and hold land. After all, they know that the United States is bogged down in two wars already and that we have very few troops in the area. They also probably believe that we will not use nuclear weapons. While this is less crazy than the first option, this also seems unlikely.

A third reason is the fact that being invaded by the US can be a financial gold mine. When we liberate or defeat a country, we do the opposite of the classic conquerors. Rather than subjugate the people and strip the country of wealth, we pour in billions to rebuild the nation, help its people, and strengthen its economy. Weirdly enough, being invaded and defeated by the United States would be a huge boost for North Korea. Well, for the folks we didn’t kill. While this seems crazy, it is something to think about.

Of course, the most plausible explanation of North Korea’s behavior is that they are engaged in political posturing to gain attention, to deal with domestic issues, and to try to get some concessions from other nations in return for backing away from their belligerent behavior.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

North Korea Nuclear Test

by 2 Comments

As a follow up to their 2006 test, North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb. Of course, a bomb is much more useful with a delivery system, so North Korea has been testing both long and short range missiles. Not surprisingly, North Korea’s test has not been well received by most other countries. Even North Korea’s closest ally, China, has expressed its disapproval.

One obvious question is why North Korea is doing this. Laying aside that their leader has often been accused of being mentally unbalanced, there are other reasons for this. One obvious reason is that testing a bomb is an effective way of proving that they have a working nuclear arsenal. Since nuclear weapons are still regarded as providing political clout, it is no wonder that North Korea wants to flex its atomic muscle.  A second obvious reason is that North Korea has learned that it can use its bad behavior as a way to get what it wants. The folks in charge in North Korea no doubt think that other countries will give them money and other things in order to persuade them to stop developing and testing nuclear weapons. In sum, they can be seen as blackmailing the rest of the world or using a tactic favored by bad children: appease us or we will do bad things.

So, what should the United States do? Attacking North Korea is not an option. Although we attacked Iraq because they were supposed to have WMDs, we know that North Korea actually has such weapons. As such, an attack would be rather costly and could escalate into a nuclear exchange. If we invaded, they would probably use the nuclear weapons and we would probably have to respond in kind. It is also easy to imagine North Korea’s leader ordering a missile launch against South Korea if he believed he was going to lose the war. North Korea might even have the means of firing a missile at the United States, although their long range missile test did not seem to work that well.

Even if North Korea decided not to go nuclear in the face of a US invasion, it is unlikely that China would simply stand by for that. After all, they fought us before during the Korean War.

Of course, given how bogged down we are in the Middle East, attacking North Korea might not even be possible.

Since invasion is not a viable option (and presumably simply nuking them is out), then diplomatic option is the one that remains.

Ironically, North Korea is helping us out here. By antagonizing and scaring the other powers, they serve to voluntarily isolate themselves. Without the backing of allies, their influence will be limited to what they themselves can do (or threaten to do). In contrast, we can gain the advantage of having numerous other nations on our side (or, at the very least, against North Korea). Unless their great leader is completely mad, North Korea should be swayed by a strong and general opposition to what they are doing. So, a diplomatic approach seems to be the viable and most effective option.

This raises the obvious question of what sort of diplomatic approach we should take. If we condemn their actions and then bribe them with aid and concessions, then we risk encouraging them to simply stay committed to their current path. After all, if testing nukes and missiles gets them what they want, then they have every reason to keep on that path. As such, it is tempting to take a negative approach and inflict some sort of punishment.

On the plus side, inflicting punishment will clearly not provide the encouragement that a bribe would provide. If they are convinced that their current path will yield no rewards, then they would (if they are rational) be motivated to leave that path. Of course, North Korea’s leadership is not well known for being rational nor for being terriblyt concerned about the well being of the general population. As such, punishments might simply push them to continue on the same path anyway.

This path could, of course, lead many ways. One possibility is that North Korea’s isolation could lead its leaders to even greater extremes and they might become a truly rogue state. For example, they might decide to sell nuclear material to terrorists-perhaps for the income and perhaps out of a desire for retaliation. Another possibility that this isolation and punishment could finally break North Korea as a country, leading to its collapse as a viable nation. How this would play out would be anyone’s guess. Perhaps it would be a quiet fall. Perhaps it would be a very loud fall, complete with nuclear missiles being launched.

In light of this, the challenge is much like that of dealing with a bad child. We cannot reward bad behavior, because we will just encourage it. We cannot just punish, because doing so will probably not improve things-and might make things worse. So, we have to find that right balance: punishments to send the right message, but also incentives to behave better.

The matter is also complicated by the fact that North Korea’s “great leader” is getting rather old and will be dead fairly soon. His succession plans are not clear and it is not clear what will happen after he is gone. Will North Korea get another “great leader” or something better for the people and the world?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Pakistan & the Taliban

by 2 Comments

Taliban forces now occupy parts of Pakistan and seem intent on both expanding and challenging the current government of the state. The government seems intent on trying to appease the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Pakistan military is threatening to take action against the Taliban.

Obviously, the situation is rather serious. One obvious concern is that Pakistan is a nuclear power and should it fall under the control of the Taliban, then they will have access to nuclear weapons. Needless to say, this would most likely be catastrophic. Even in the Taliban is not able to take full control of Pakistan, their presence creates a serious instability and this situation might soon involve neighboring states as well. Of particular concern is Pakistan’s traditional enemy, the nuclear armed state of India. While India is not doubt considering the advantages of a weakened and partially occupied Pakistan, they are also no doubt concerned about what having the Taliban on their border. As such, it is reasonable to be concerned that India might decide to step in and take action.

In some ways Pakistan has helped to bring the situation on itself. Apparently, Pakistan has encouraged and supported various groups in the hopes of using them to its advantage. However, they seem to have forgotten a very important rule: never raise up what you cannot put down. While Pakistan has an impressive military, they might be hard pressed to deal with the sort of war/insurgency waged by the Taliban. Things could go very badly for Pakistan-very badly indeed.

The United States also has to accept some responsibility for the current situation. When we were focused on Afghanistan, it seemed that we had effectively broken the Taliban. However, when Bush and Cheney took us on an adventure into Iraq, this focus was lost. While we were sorting out the quagmire that we created in Iraq, the Taliban was able to rebuild and emerge as a serious threat once more. While it is not possible to conclusively prove what might have been, it is almost certain that things would be much different now if the United States had remained focused on Afghanistan. While Obama has shown that he intends to refocus American attention there, precious time and opportunity has already been badly wasted. Further, many of our resources are tied up in Iraq. As such, if Pakistan falls to the Taliban, it would be fair to say that Bush and Cheney helped hand the state to them.

Now the question is this: what should the United States do? It seems unlikely that a diplomatic solution will work in this situation, though perhaps it is worth trying. Dealing with the Taliban via military means will also be challenging. First, many of our forces are tied up elsewhere. Second, Pakistan is (for now) a sovereign state and hence our intrusion could very well lead to conflict with Pakistan. Third, there are the usual challenges with dealing with a force such as the Taliban. Fourth, there is the concern that other states in the area (such as Iran and India) might react poorly to yet another American adventure in the area.

Obviously the United States cannot allow Pakistan to fall to the Taliban and we certainly cannot allow them to gain access to nuclear weapons. How we are to prevent this will be  a major challenge to Obama. We shall see soon enough if the candidate of hope is now the president of action.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: