Something to think about on national 'safety'

[Craig234]

I have a question: please define what you think the right of 'safety' is that a nation can reasonably use as its standard for its defense.

There's one rule, however: whatever level you pick, has to apply to ALL nations.

So, if you think having nuclear weapons is reasonable for deterring aggression, then all nations get them; if you don't, then the US has to give them up, too.

Something to remember as you pick your answer: the US for most of its history has had far less military superiority 'protecting' it, leaving it 'vulnerable' to attack by at least a combination of other nations. From the time of our revolution - where the US would not have been created if not for the help of France - until arguably some time before WWII in the 20th century, the US was more 'vulnerable'.

If you go to the extreme, the security of a nation could mean one of a few things; ruling all of the world under one government, killing all people outside the nation, or putting the rest of the world into a de-armed tyranny keeping them from having any power that might be a threat. But those are hardly standards that can meet the requirement of being a standard available for each country - much less defended as 'reasonable'.

This is not so much practical, as we're going to have inequality, but it's meant to get people to consider, what is a reasonable amount of 'defense'?

It's easy for a powerful nation to want ever more 'defense' to the point it has to be a tyrant over others to 'protect its security'.

Indeed, the Neocons explicitly endorsed a policy for the US to use any means necessary to prevent any other power from rising to be any competition.

That's clearly not a standard that every nation can have.

So, what is the level of defense that every nation could reasonably expect?

If the answer is 'there isn't one, because any standard is either too low for us to accept for ourselves, or too high for every nation to get it', what does that say?

Does that suggestion that some form of stronger international law preventing aggressive acts is important for peace, given the inequality?

Currently, the US has a standard that includes things like 'global presence' involving naval presence globally, e.g. '11 carrier groups needed', and hundreds of bases.

How 'safe' does that leave other nations feeling, who have far less, who as posters regularly comment, 'could have their militaries taken out over a weekend easily'?

 

[mrjminer]

It depends on what the criminals/outliers have.

 

[MotF Bane]

There's one rule, however: whatever level you pick, has to apply to ALL nations.

So, if you think having nuclear weapons is reasonable for deterring aggression, then all nations get them; if you don't, then the US has to give them up, too.

No. There are some countries that have a certain degree of stability in their leaders, their governmental succession, and their populace that nuclear weapons are fine for their possession. There are some countries that lack any or all of those characteristics, and thus cannot be "trusted" to have nuclear weapons.

 

[Macamus Prime]

It depends on the nation's plans outside of it's borders.

If you are invading and killing innocent people during your lust for oil and reven,.. eh,... pursuit of justice, you should have enough ammo to fight off the entire world. If you keep shitting on the innocent, you'll eventually get fucked.

 

[gsaldivar]

No. There are some countries that have a certain degree of stability in their leaders, their governmental succession, and their populace that nuclear weapons are fine for their possession. There are some countries that lack any or all of those characteristics, and thus cannot be "trusted" to have nuclear weapons.

This.

 

[Jaskalas]

No. There are some countries that have a certain degree of stability in their leaders, their governmental succession, and their populace that nuclear weapons are fine for their possession. There are some countries that lack any or all of those characteristics, and thus cannot be "trusted" to have nuclear weapons.

While a country may be stable over a period of time, nuclear weapons will outlast any government. How then can we trust anyone with them, including ourselves?

Do not forget that we have had a civil war already, and while America had an amazing 20th century we are in decline now. Poverty and unrest are on the rise, politics has failed to meet the needs of our nation. Some day we could look like Pakistan.

While I agree with the notion that some nations have risen above others to determine worthiness and trust with nuclear weapons - we'll never stop anyone from obtaining them, and we'll never maintain a permanent stable government. They will fall into unworthy hands.

 

[gsaldivar]

Some day we could look like Pakistan.

 

[blackangst1]

No. There are some countries that have a certain degree of stability in their leaders, their governmental succession, and their populace that nuclear weapons are fine for their possession. There are some countries that lack any or all of those characteristics, and thus cannot be "trusted" to have nuclear weapons.

Agree. The set-up of this question is so unrealistic, it really cant be answered. The all or none question about nukes, because, well, as MotF said, not all leaders can be trusted with them.

Your comment,

Indeed, the Neocons explicitly endorsed a policy for the US to use any means necessary to prevent any other power from rising to be any competition.

is a very blatent stab, obviously, at neocons, without understanding this type of thinking has existed on both sides of the aisle, and has existed throughout humanity. It always will be. It cant be legislated away, nor can it be taught away. It's part of human nature. We are a competitive animal, and no amount of feel good speeches or legislation will end it.

Your set-up in the question really only becomes a valid argument IF all countries have the same mindset as to their own country's place in the world, what it can offer, and what it will risk to defend. Unfortunately, like most of your ideas, they arent based anywhere near possible.

 

[woolfe9999]

I have a question: please define what you think the right of 'safety' is that a nation can reasonably use as its standard for its defense.

There's one rule, however: whatever level you pick, has to apply to ALL nations.

So, if you think having nuclear weapons is reasonable for deterring aggression, then all nations get them; if you don't, then the US has to give them up, too.

Something to remember as you pick your answer: the US for most of its history has had far less military superiority 'protecting' it, leaving it 'vulnerable' to attack by at least a combination of other nations. From the time of our revolution - where the US would not have been created if not for the help of France - until arguably some time before WWII in the 20th century, the US was more 'vulnerable'.

If you go to the extreme, the security of a nation could mean one of a few things; ruling all of the world under one government, killing all people outside the nation, or putting the rest of the world into a de-armed tyranny keeping them from having any power that might be a threat. But those are hardly standards that can meet the requirement of being a standard available for each country - much less defended as 'reasonable'.

This is not so much practical, as we're going to have inequality, but it's meant to get people to consider, what is a reasonable amount of 'defense'?

It's easy for a powerful nation to want ever more 'defense' to the point it has to be a tyrant over others to 'protect its security'.

Indeed, the Neocons explicitly endorsed a policy for the US to use any means necessary to prevent any other power from rising to be any competition.

That's clearly not a standard that every nation can have.

So, what is the level of defense that every nation could reasonably expect?

If the answer is 'there isn't one, because any standard is either too low for us to accept for ourselves, or too high for every nation to get it', what does that say?

Does that suggestion that some form of stronger international law preventing aggressive acts is important for peace, given the inequality?

Currently, the US has a standard that includes things like 'global presence' involving naval presence globally, e.g. '11 carrier groups needed', and hundreds of bases.

How 'safe' does that leave other nations feeling, who have far less, who as posters regularly comment, 'could have their militaries taken out over a weekend easily'?

It's a little unclear whether you are framing this question in the context of pragmatism/real politik or if this is a moral question to you. In the real world, the answer to your question is simpler than it appears at first blush. Powerful security is not possible without a powerful economy. Each nation will, in reality, have as much security as it can afford. Don't expect nations which are economically powerful to dumb their security because you have a moral objection to superpowers acting like superpowers. I see nothing about this changing unless or until we have a world government.

That said, the U.S. has a debt crisis in part because we cannot afford the level of security we have chosen to purchase. Every nation must balance guns and butter and live within its means.

Furthermore, I disagree with neo-conservative foreign policy not because I think they seek "too much security" but rather because I think their brand of security is weaker and less safe than a less interventionist foreign policy. In some cases where security is concerned, less is more.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's a little unclear whether you are framing this question in the context of pragmatism/real politik or if this is a moral question to you. In the real world, the answer to your question is simpler than it appears at first blush. Powerful security is not possible without a powerful economy. Each nation will, in reality, have as much security as it can afford. Don't expect nations which are economically powerful to dumb their security because you have a moral objection to superpowers acting like superpowers. I see nothing about this changing unless or until we have a world government.

That said, the U.S. has a debt crisis in part because we cannot afford the level of security we have chosen to purchase. Every nation must balance guns and butter and live within its means.

Furthermore, I disagree with neo-conservative foreign policy not because I think they seek "too much security" but rather because I think their brand of security is weaker and less safe than a less interventionist foreign policy. In some cases where security is concerned, less is more.

Well the security of the nation as a whole is more important than the welfare programs that are what are truly bankrupting us. The survival of the greater group is more important than the survival of the smaller group within. It's the law of nature. If you're going to cut somewhere, cut welfare programs 1st. That is the logical conclusion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's one rule, however: whatever level you pick, has to apply to ALL nations.

No.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well the security of the nation as a whole is more important than the welfare programs that are what are truly bankrupting us. The survival of the greater group is more important than the survival of the smaller group within. It's the law of nature. If you're going to cut somewhere, cut welfare programs 1st. That is the logical conclusion.

I don't understand how you can operate on the assumption that you always cut butter before guns. Currently of course, we need to cut both, but that is because we have no choice. However, your blanket statement begs the question of whether we could be equally or more secure while spending less on defense.

 

[werepossum]

It's a little unclear whether you are framing this question in the context of pragmatism/real politik or if this is a moral question to you. In the real world, the answer to your question is simpler than it appears at first blush. Powerful security is not possible without a powerful economy. Each nation will, in reality, have as much security as it can afford. Don't expect nations which are economically powerful to dumb their security because you have a moral objection to superpowers acting like superpowers. I see nothing about this changing unless or until we have a world government.

That said, the U.S. has a debt crisis in part because we cannot afford the level of security we have chosen to purchase. Every nation must balance guns and butter and live within its means.

Furthermore, I disagree with neo-conservative foreign policy not because I think they seek "too much security" but rather because I think their brand of security is weaker and less safe than a less interventionist foreign policy. In some cases where security is concerned, less is more.

You do realize that Obama too is indulging in what you term neo-conservative foreign policy, right? Perhaps it's merely mainstream American policy?

Personally I don't think we can't afford the level of security we have chosen to purchase. We merely can't afford to provide it to half the world on our dime. This "world's lone superpower" thing is just flattery to convince us to provide security for other nations and other nations' civilians.

I don't understand how you can operate on the assumption that you always cut butter before guns. Currently of course, we need to cut both, but that is because we have no choice. However, your blanket statement begs the question of whether we could be equally or more secure while spending less on defense.

We're not advocating cutting butter, we're advocating cutting our "feed the lazy" programs. Case in point:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=89385&tsp=1
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/20/republican-senator-takes-on-the-adult-baby/

 

[woolfe9999]

You do realize that Obama too is indulging in what you term neo-conservative foreign policy, right? Perhaps it's merely mainstream American policy?

Personally I don't think we can't afford the level of security we have chosen to purchase. We merely can't afford to provide it to half the world on our dime. This "world's lone superpower" thing is just flattery to convince us to provide security for other nations and other nations' civilians.


We're not advocating cutting butter, we're advocating cutting our "feed the lazy" programs. Case in point:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=89385&tsp=1
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/20/republican-senator-takes-on-the-adult-baby/

I would argue that if Bush had not started these 2 wars, no one would right now be arguing that Obama's foreign policy resembles neo-conservatism. The question of whether to start a war is not the same as the question of what to do with a war than has been going on for 7-8 years.

So-called "feed the lazy" programs are not a very large part of our national budget. This answer is ideological, not practical. It's like the typical conservative plan to balance the budget that starts with "eliminating the Department of Education." Either you're serious about balancing the budget, or you're really just trying to use the occasion of a debt crisis to pursue your own kind of social engineering project. If you want to balance the budget, look at what's really causing the problem.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

I would argue that if Bush had not started these 2 wars, no one would right now be arguing that Obama's foreign policy resembles neo-conservatism. The question of whether to start a war is not the same as the question of what to do with a war than has been going on for 7-8 years.

So-called "feed the lazy" programs are not a very large part of our national budget. This answer is ideological, not practical. It's like the typical conservative plan to balance the budget that starts with "eliminating the Department of Education." Either you're serious about balancing the budget, or you're really just trying to use the occasion of a debt crisis to pursue your own kind of social engineering project. If you want to balance the budget, look at what's really causing the problem.

- wolf

Libya?

Typical conservative plan to balance the budget is to cut the ancillary programs not authorized by the Constitution. Typical liberal plan to balance the budget is to cut defense and increase everything else, assuming that in Step 2 "A miracle happens". And of course raise taxes on the evil rich, because if there's one thing we know, it's that money taken away from government is catastrophic but money taken away from individuals has no adverse effects at all. Typical progressive plan to balance the budget is to deny the budget even needs to be balanced, since everyone knows that all government money comes from an inexhaustible Magic Cupboard, all government spending (except defense) is good, and government spending effects the economy positively while private sector spending disappears into a black hole of evil profit, presumably to be hoarded in mattresses.

EDIT: I'm willing to accept that some combination of the first two (cutting defense and non-defense alike) will be required to work our way out of this hole. We do however need to end our two (or is it three?) wars before we start cutting defense. There's a vast difference between defunding people who literally put their lives on the line to enforce their government's whims in the name of securing freedom and safety, and those who want other people to support them so that they can spend all their time indulging their dream of being a 160 kg baby, tending a 160 kg baby, being a performance artist, etc.

 

[Anarchist420]

National safety is an illusion. Too many people hear need to get schooled by Lysander Spooner and No Treason.

Also, Neoconserativism is not conservative (a high military budget is not conservative). Rather, neoconservatism is progressive. You can't have warfare without having welfare and you can't have welfare without a police state.

 

[Craig234]

Anarchist, stop using the word progressive. You tell a big lie every time you do.

I've shown here for a year that '95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%', but you are perhaps the worst misrepresenter about it.

I won't try to decipher the rest of your post here.

It's interesting to note not one response has attempted to answer the question.

Neocons are not intended to be a topic - they were a 'side comment', because they explicitly back the policy; but every modern president has largely implicitly backed it.

One interesting comment to those who talk about 'affording a high level of security' (i.e. world dominance) forget that one part of that can be economic benefit, also.

Now, Chalmers Johnson made an interesting case that every 'world dominant' power eventually has to make a choice between empire and democracy/liberty; he cited Rome as an example of one that chose empire and Britain as one that chose Democracy. But one motivation for empire can be the exploitation of others, that can be very profitable - and immoral.

So an aggressive foreign policy - imperialist - can sometimes be more 'affordable', when it effectively robs the controlled nations of resources and/or labor.

Money isn't the issue for this topic - it's not about basing the answer on what we can afford.

To answer Wolfe's question, though, any policy has tests both for 'realpolitik' and 'morality'. Any policy posted can be measured by both.

If you post a policy that is ruthless but effective, it's open to criticism it's immoral. If you post a policy to get rid of all powerful weapons, it's open to criticism as impractical.

 

[3chordcharlie]

No.

Well that's very illuminating!

 

[woolfe9999]

Anarchist, stop using the word progressive. You tell a big lie every time you do.

I've shown here for a year that '95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%', but you are perhaps the worst misrepresenter about it.

I won't try to decipher the rest of your post here.

It's interesting to note not one response has attempted to answer the question.

Neocons are not intended to be a topic - they were a 'side comment', because they explicitly back the policy; but every modern president has largely implicitly backed it.

One interesting comment to those who talk about 'affording a high level of security' (i.e. world dominance) forget that one part of that can be economic benefit, also.

Now, Chalmers Johnson made an interesting case that every 'world dominant' power eventually has to make a choice between empire and democracy/liberty; he cited Rome as an example of one that chose empire and Britain as one that chose Democracy. But one motivation for empire can be the exploitation of others, that can be very profitable - and immoral.

So an aggressive foreign policy - imperialist - can sometimes be more 'affordable', when it effectively robs the controlled nations of resources and/or labor.

Money isn't the issue for this topic - it's not about basing the answer on what we can afford.

To answer Wolfe's question, though, any policy has tests both for 'realpolitik' and 'morality'. Any policy posted can be measured by both.

If you post a policy that is ruthless but effective, it's open to criticism it's immoral. If you post a policy to get rid of all powerful weapons, it's open to criticism as impractical.

In case I wasn't explicit enough in my point, it is that because security is a function of wealth, in the real world you will never have anything approaching equality of security. You can make a moral argument for it, but wealthier nations will have more security, and sometimes it will come at the expense of less wealthy nations. No nation will denude itself of security because they believe that morally all nations should have equal security. That's real politik. So when you say that your hypothetical means that everyone must play by the same rules, sorry that isn't going to happen in the real world, and that's why people aren't playing the hypothetical.

With regard to your point about security producing wealth - it is valid in theory. However, if we are placing this in the context of the US, I think it's pretty clear that our interventionism has cost us far more economically than we have ever gained. For the most part, I think we do it out of general concern for security. The trouble is, our concept of what is best for our security is often misguided or even foolish, e.g. neo-conservatism as an example.

 

[3chordcharlie]

In case I wasn't explicit enough in my point, it is that because security is a function of wealth, in the real world you will never have anything approaching equality of security. You can make a moral argument for it, but wealthier nations will have more security, and sometimes it will come at the expense of less wealthy nations. No nation will denude itself of security because they believe that morally all nations should have equal security. That's real politik. So when you say that your hypothetical means that everyone must play by the same rules, sorry that isn't going to happen in the real world, and that's why people aren't playing the hypothetical.

With regard to your point about security producing wealth - it is valid in theory. However, if we are placing this in the context of the US, I think it's pretty clear that our interventionism has cost us far more economically than we have ever gained. For the most part, I think we do it out of general concern for security. The trouble is, our concept of what is best for our security is often misguided or even foolish, e.g. neo-conservatism as an example.

He didn't say (at least I'm pretty sure he didn't) that if you have nukes, you have to give them to everyone else.

He raised a thought experiment about what (if any) intrinsic security rights nations might have.

 

[woolfe9999]

He didn't say (at least I'm pretty sure he didn't) that if you have nukes, you have to give them to everyone else.

He raised a thought experiment about what (if any) intrinsic security rights nations might have.

Yes I understand exactly what his thought experiment is. The trouble is it comes with a set of rules that are too far removed from the real world for the experiment to have any practical benefit.

BTW, if YOU want to answer his hypothetical directly, nothing is stopping you.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've shown here for a year that '95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%', but you are perhaps the worst misrepresenter about it.

No, you've shown that 99% of what you say are lies, and the other 1% no one cares to remember.

 

[spidey07]

National safety means have greater arms and potential to inflict damage and in substantial size and power more than any other nation. OP's premise is the opposite of safety in the natural laws of man and nature.

Regarding crazy countries with nukes - they have nothing to lose so by definition shouldn't have them.

 

[maluckey]

Really Craig!?

Does nobody read anymore. One small book, not much more than a pamphlet spells it out. "The Prince".

This was even well used in the old movie "Roadhouse"

Dalton: I want you to be nice.. until it's time..to not be nice
Bouncer: So, uh, how are we supposed to know when that is?
Dalton: You won't..I'll let you know...You are the bouncers I am the Cooler; All you have to do is watch my back and each others....and take out the trash!

Nations don't have to be fair, or equal. They just need to be ready to be nice...or not nice. War is the ultimate economic tool. If we forget that we fail, like in Afghanistan and Iraq...and now maybe Egypt and Libya. If we get NOTHING by going to war, we should give nothing.

In your overly simplistic view, it's so unreal as to be laughable. Why don't you just say it....come on!..."can't we all just get along?"

 

[Zebo]

We want best and want others to have worst defense possible. West won the world and continues to grow, not with superior belief systems or values or religion but through organized violence. Why would you want to make that harder on you? Or worse have someone else's values winning? Imagine a world under Dar Islam for example.