Something to think about on national 'safety'

[davmat787]

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.

Why apply to ALL nations? Think about our right to own firearms here in the US. Is it logical that anyone can own a firearm regardless of past criminal history?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Your "rules" suck. They have no semblance to reality.

 

[Craig234]

Why apply to ALL nations? Think about our right to own firearms here in the US. Is it logical that anyone can own a firearm regardless of past criminal history?

Let's not get hung up on the worst country we can think of. We can easily make an exception for some of the worst countries, but trying not to complicate it from one rule.

The point is for most countries to get the same level of 'safety', not the issues with the few most problematic.

Discussing 'what about Somalia' as the whole response misses most countries.

 

[3chordcharlie]

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.

One obvious response to the hypothetical would be that there should be no external, or 'group' restrictions placed on the security measures taken by any given nation. Equally obvious would be that any externally focused action could justifiably be met in kind.

This would be analogous to a libertarian view of security - freedom for any nation to do as they will without stepping on the (domestic) freedom of other nations to do the same.

 

[Double Trouble]

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%

Yeah, I'm sure that's what everyone's thinking :biggrin::biggrin:

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

People have not attempted to really answer the question because your question is based on flawed hypothetical premises that have no basis in the real world. How do you expect a real world answer to questions based on premises that have no basis in the real world?

For starters, your main "rule" is that something has to apply to all the countries in the world. That makes no sense as all countries are different and have different aims.

The basic US doctrine is "we have the right to take out anything that can harm us". That of course makes no sense in a world where all countries are somehow "equal", but the US has the military strength to do so. I don't have a problem with this approach, except that our standards of what constitutes a threat to us appear hopelessly misguided and are influenced more by policy and economics than security.

 

[davmat787]

Let's not get hung up on the worst country we can think of. We can easily make an exception for some of the worst countries, but trying not to complicate it from one rule.

The point is for most countries to get the same level of 'safety', not the issues with the few most problematic.

Discussing 'what about Somalia' as the whole response misses most countries.

I think you replied to the wrong quote, I made mention of Somalia or other countries. I was merely trying to draw a parallel to gun ownership in the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Not only that but the assumption is that every country has the same worldview and non-aggressive tendencies. The US for all it's faults isn't likely to use nuclear weapons because it has an alternative. Nations like Iran are a problem because we have a government in this case who's power struggles are addressed with charges of sorcery, and organizations like Al Qaeda might be able to acquire nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes from sympathetic nations. The question has no practical answer since every nation and indeed the same nations in different times have different needs and present different threats, hence my brief "no" to the condition that one solution must apply to all.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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.

Please show evidence of this. By evidence, I mean facts.

What?? You can't?

Hack.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Your "rules" suck. They have no semblance to reality.

Welcome to Craig's world.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

I reject the premise that any nation in the history of humanity ever used reason to determine its defense policy or military budget. (Not that you actually made that assertion, but let's be clear what you're asking for: a fantasy standard that has no hope of ever being applied by the crazies who run the world.)

 

[Craig234]

I reject the premise that any nation in the history of humanity ever used reason to determine its defense policy or military budget. (Not that you actually made that assertion, but let's be clear what you're asking for: a fantasy standard that has no hope of ever being applied by the crazies who run the world.)

Absolutely. I'm asking for a 'what's right' answer that has nothing to do with what's practically possible to implement.

Your post has part of the point - not "any nation in the history of humanity has ever used reason to determine its defense policy or military budget" you said.

Now find me any president who has admitted what you just said as fact. Discussing the issue has as part of it bringing out things like that that aren't the normal discourse.

In theory and under the law, every nation on Earth has protection from every UN signatory waging aggressive war on them. That has a *practical* effect on the use of militaries. It may not be an ideal - but discussing what's right can lead to things like that UN charter that moves us closer to it.

You did not answer the question - what level of safety should every nation have?

The point there is to get you to consider in part, if you want a low standard for a nation, are you ok with it for you? If you want high for you, are you ok with it for them?

Or are you locked into inequality where you want unlimited safety for yourself and unlimited risk and inequality for others? It's good to admit that for once, if so.

 

[Craig234]

I think you replied to the wrong quote, I made mention of Somalia or other countries. I was merely trying to draw a parallel to gun ownership in the US.

We don't really have an analogy with guns.

While there are debates about 'universal concealed carry rights' versus 'handgun bans' and other flavors, there's no equivalent issue.

If we had a few billionares who traveled the streets of America surrounded by armed humvees who shot people up regularly without accountability, and had drones overhead bombing people who might pose a risk (that's not meant to describe what the US does anywhere now, it's an analogy), then we might have some comparison to ask, 'what protection should each citizen in the US have' that points out great inequalities in the standards for people. But that's just not the case.

There are inequalities; we have special classes who are armed (e.g., police), we have people who have private security, but the impact of these things can't be compared to the inequality of military power between nations, nor its uses or impact on people, the amount of violence. It's just not a useful analogy.

 

[werepossum]

Please show evidence of this. By evidence, I mean facts.

What?? You can't?

Hack.

Don't you understand that he's already proven his case? The voices in his head are unanimous about that.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Don't you understand that he's already proven his case? The voices in his head are unanimous about that.

Are the voices in his head a democracy?

 

[werepossum]

Are the voices in his head a democracy?

 

[blackangst1]

Absolutely. I'm asking for a 'what's right' answer that has nothing to do with what's practically possible to implement.

---snipped---

Since you qualified this, I will say high level of security for everyone. And to add to that, I think that if any country wants to oppress its own people, let them. Until it affects us directly. Let the Africas and the North Koreas (oh wait...we're already are passive about those two...we really dont give a shit) and the Libyas do what they want. Of course it becomes more complicated when you throw in trade.