<p>Garbage! I keep doing the same typo over and over again. Hey, some of what i typed is missing few "ITs"</p>
<p>I say NO ONE, not Iran, not Iraq, not Canada, and CERTAINLY not the US, is entitled to nukes or WMDs for that matter. If the US wants to promote nuclear nonproliferation, it needs to start at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW UCLAri, others (non-americans) would have more respect for us if our politicians get up and be as frank as you are (and others on this thread). But I don't think respect is an important element in the game.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think so, actually. I think the world is quite happy with the restrained hegemon. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Big part of our strength is being able to manipulate others. The recent events (last 5-8 years) weakened this front of ours. We should get back on track and find trickier ways than war to stay on top. It's all about staying on the top of others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think we ever "tricked" anyone. After the Second World War, the European nations knew that they were not going to stand toe-to-toe with the US. The same applies for the end of the Cold War and the former Soviet bloc vis-a-vis NATO. What they've attempted, argue realists, is to balance and tie down (through institutional ties) the US as much as possible. Liberalists instead argue that the US and other states realized that it's best for everyone if everyone cooperates. </p>
<p>I'm somewhere in between. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How so? Do disagree with Thucydides' quote?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that the current system has given us the only glimmer of hope ever of an alternative system. However, the emergence of a new hegemon or two might challenge liberalist assumptions about the future. I'm not sure that I agree with ***uyama that history is over.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I say NO ONE, not Iran, not Iraq, not Canada, and CERTAINLY not the US, is entitled to nukes or WMDs for that matter. If the US wants to promote nuclear nonproliferation, it needs to start at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is an unrealistic demand for any state. If the US gives up its nuclear arsenal, there is no guarantee that China or Russia will do the same, leaving the US tactically vulnerable. It would destroy any deterrence the US had.</p>
<p>Ain't happening. The best we can hope for is reductions, which SALT and SALT II thankfully did lead to to an extent.</p>
<p>Well. Despite of any objections I may have, I am rather contented with your openness. Actually, I still am surprised that someone is (brave?) enough to quote Thucydides on this one.</p>
<p>I couldn't ask for a better ending. I was gonna cut&paste it when appropriate, but you did it for me UCLAri. For me, this thread, while being very entertaining and educating, ended much sooner than anticipated.</p>
<p>UCLAri, Fides et Ratio, gzhang, and everyone participated in this thread: my hat's off to you!</p>
<p>Now, each of us must choose a side before preparing for a/the big fight.</p>
<p>Thus far I have nothing to contribute to this thread.</p>
<p>"Justice without strength is powerless. Strength without justice is tyrannical. Ununable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just."</p>
<p>Blaise Pascal</p>
<p>Those who say France and England tried to appease Hitler back in 1936-1939 are lacking historic perspective. France in 1936 was an agrarian society, both poor and ill-equipped to battle a highly industrialized, clearly more heavily more puplated Germany. England was industrialized, but its population was still relatively poor. France and England combined could not have beaten Germany...not in 1936. Of course, the way the World is today, it is hard to imagine how France and England (the 4 or 5th largest Economies on Earth with two of the 5 mightiest miliaries on Earth) could have lost to Germany, but the reality back then was as such. France began to industrialize and militarize in the 1950s. </p>
<p>In principle, I don't want to see any country acquire a nuclear weapon. However, whether we think it is hypocritical or justifiable for a nuclear power like France, Israel or the US to demand a country like Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions, it is impossible for them to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is an unrealistic demand for any state. If the US gives up its nuclear arsenal, there is no guarantee that China or Russia will do the same, leaving the US tactically vulnerable. It would destroy any deterrence the US had.</p>
<p>Ain't happening. The best we can hope for is reductions, which SALT and SALT II thankfully did lead to to an extent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not let economy play the trick? Let's propose a WMD tax. Any country poccess with WMD will be assessed accordingly, making it more accountable and less likely to want more. If they could not afford it, they may just chose to dispose it using a fund from such tax.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In principle, I don't want to see any country acquire a nuclear weapon. However, whether we think it is hypocritical or justifiable for a nuclear power like France, Israel or the US to demand a country like Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions, it is impossible for them to do so.
[/quote]
I think nuclear weapon prevented "hot" war between Soviet Union and US and turned it into cold war.
[quote]
Why not let economy play the trick? Let's propose a WMD tax. Any country poccess with WMD will be assessed accordingly, making it more accountable and less likely to want more. If they could not afford it, they may just chose to dispose it using a fund from such tax.
[/quote]
Again, this requires some ultimate power over countries. And no one wants US as a sole ruler of the world.
There is a thing called "United Nations" but since US doesn't care about it (acting as an international lawbreaker), it isn't effective.</p>
<p>Actually, in my previous post when I mentioned that the United States has saved the world twice, I was referring to World War II and the Cold War, not World War I. </p>
<p>I'll agree that no one should have nukes. Just like no one should have AIDS and people shouldn't do drugs. The fact is that while a world without nuclear weapons may seem feasable and appealing, it just isn't possible. As was stated earlier by UCLA, no one country is going to get rid of its nuclear weapons without all others following suit. And there will always be nations that won't play ball, thus making nuclear weapon elimination close to impossible. </p>
<p>That is all there is to it.</p>
<p>Alexandre-France (by 1940) had a superior Armored force and more forces available than Germany had. Unfortunately, they did not have the communications, command, or control to use their forces as well as the Germans did. German forces simply outmaneuvered the French.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, this requires some ultimate power and justice over countries. And no one wants US as a sole ruler of the world.
There is a thing called "United Nations" but since US doesn't care about it (acting as an international lawbreaker), it isn't effective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't there are something called International Atomic Agency that is deal with nuclear issues? It could act for common good and countries may be willing to concede some power to avoid increasing danger of nuclear arm race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not let economy play the trick? Let's propose a WMD tax. Any country poccess with WMD will be assessed accordingly, making it more accountable and less likely to want more. If they could not afford it, they may just chose to dispose it using a fund from such tax.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who's going to tax that country? Better yet, who's going to enforce payment of that tax?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, this requires some ultimate power and justice over countries. And no one wants US as a sole ruler of the world.
There is a thing called "United Nations" but since US doesn't care about it (acting as an international lawbreaker), it isn't effective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not that the US doesn't care about the UN-- after all, the US is an extremely large funder of the UN and its subsidiary organizations. It's just that no country is willing to give up its total sovereignty to the UN. China gave the UN and other IGOs the finger after Tiananmen. The UK would have gone to war in the Falklands whether or not the UN had signed off on it.</p>
<p>The notion of "illegal war" or "international lawbreaking" is only as realistic as the countries' willingness to obey these laws. The state of international political affairs is, as guys like Mearsheimer say, anarchy. And states live in a self-help world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't there are something called International Atomic Agency that is deal with nuclear issues? It could act for common good and countries may be willing to concede some power to avoid increasing danger of nuclear arm race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but let's consider a disarmament scenario.</p>
<p>The US and Russia agree to get rid of every last nuke. But then as they carry them all off to be destroyed, Russia (or the US, pick your poison) decides, "Hey! We should keep just one. Y'know, just in case we ever do go to war again..." </p>
<p>Now, the US isn't stupid. They know that Russia's going to keep at least a few around. After all, who's going to enforce Russia's getting rid of them? </p>
<p>So the US does the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who's going to tax that country? Better yet, who's going to enforce payment of that tax?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think International Atomic Agency could do it, if countries willing to sign up to establish a taxing district for such purpose. Isn't they do all sort of inspections already?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, but let's consider a disarmament scenario.</p>
<p>The US and Russia agree to get rid of every last nuke. But then as they carry them all off to be destroyed, Russia (or the US, pick your poison) decides, "Hey! We should keep just one. Y'know, just in case we ever do go to war again..."</p>
<p>Now, the US isn't stupid. They know that Russia's going to keep at least a few around. After all, who's going to enforce Russia's getting rid of them?</p>
<p>So the US does the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't expect any country to get rid of their every last nuke. But with a suitable WMD tax, they may want to keep its nuke number to a minimum, to a level they could afford. Small countries may be less eager to possess WMD. We may all be safer as a result.</p>
<p>inverse,</p>
<p>Who's going to enforce the tax?</p>
<p>raimus, Germany had been secretly re-militarizing since 1933. Given its industrial capacity, which was far greater than France's, Germany would have outlasted France in any military scenario. And like I said, in terms of men of military age, Germany outnumbered Franced 2:1. Even if France had more miliatry equipment in 1940 (according ot offical sources, which we know isn't reliable), France would never have been able to figh Germany adequately. In 1914-1918, when the population difference of men aged 16-50 between France and Germany was negligible and Germany was still just developping its industrial complex, France barely managed to hang on and at the cost of 3 million lives. 20 years later, France didn't stand a chance. </p>
<p>This said, I also agree that the French did not have the communications, command, or control to use their forces as well as the Germans did. And of course, forgetting that France and Germany both shared borders with tiny and flat Belgium didn't help France any! LOL!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think International Atomic Agency could do it, if countries willing to sign up to establish a taxing district for such purpose. Isn't they do all sort of inspections already?
[/quote]
There's no way agency of this sort would even prevent a war. And total destruction of country's defense for the rest of the time wouldn't be enforcable either.</p>
<p>And what's wrong with nuclear weapons? They are successfully holding off the direct conflicts and might be the answer to ultimate peace.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what's wrong with nuclear weapons? They are successfully holding off the direct conflicts and might be the answer to ultimate peace.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but them many countries want it and we don't want them to have it, resulting in endless tension and conflict.</p>
<p>
[quote]
inverse,</p>
<p>Who's going to enforce the tax?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some taxing district international community agree on, I suppose. Perhaps work like collect U.N. dues. Isn't it easier to intercept money than WMD?</p>