At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[CapelDodger]

Oh yes, it is good. When I heard, quite recently, a report about money laundering activities related to terrorrism was believed to have happened in the frontiers of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay... a) I was skeptical. Were they hiding Saddam's WMDs also? and b) I was afraid this would be used to justify American interventionism in that area. And that's old news. I believe South America is better off overall if the US looks into other directions.

The current US adventurism is going to be abandoned sometime soon, and the best hope for Latin America, IMO, is an isolationist reaction. What you don't want is the US retreating across the Oceans to concentrate "on their own back-yard".

The projected fence on the Mexican border is a good sign of isolationist thinking.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understood you said it was never US's policy to oppose other countries from having nuclear weapons.

No, I mean more than that: I mean that in fact, not just in policy, we have not at any point acted to try to de-nuclearize any of the states classified as nuclear powers under the NPT. It is official US policy to oppose every non-nuclear country bound by the NPT from having nuclear weapons, because that's the position they voluntarily accepted through signing that treaty. The relevant distinction I'm trying to make here isn't between enrichment and nuclear weapons (though that issue has plenty of complexity of its own), but that official US policy towards the right of countries to acquire nuclear weapons is largely driven by the status they voluntarily accepted under the NPT, and that, in contrast to the claim that we oppose other countries having nuclear weapons, we do in fact recognize the right of a number of countries (including Russia and China which we're largely at odds with) to have such weapons.

So yes, it's not the same, but my train of thought is quite obvious - if instead of having denied vehemently any desire of having nuclear weapons Brazil had hinted it might build it one day... do you think the US would have remained neutral? I don't think so.

Nor could we be expected to remain neutral if Brazil or any other country hinted that they would violate a treaty they had with us, which is what Brazil acquiring nuclear weapons would amount to.

 

[Cain]

Who’s moving goalposts? You evoke Thucidydes, [sic] Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli because “this sort of realism” goes back to what they’ve written, yet you can’t produce a word written by them to back up your point of view. It kinda leads me to believe you’re full of $hit and just like dropping names because it sounds impressive.

Because it's not a controversial claim; posturing is part of international relations. You can disagree with the application, but the not the idea. I would have difficulty citing "transitional fossils" off the top of my head (aside from the "fish with the neck" and the archeoptryx) even though though I know umpteen have been found. I'm not about to go sifting through a text to "prove" something so basic, especially after providing concrete examples.

You seem to be misusing the term “saber rattling.”

http://www.answers.com/saber+rattling&r=67

There is nothing in the definition that says saber rattling is bluff and bluster, not to be taken seriously.

I suggest you look at the example used on your precious site, as well as the first definition. Also, again, consult my original post from which these shameful meanderings have followed.

And your evidence is…?

Oh, this is just ridiculous. I dunno, probably because anyone at all familiar with her opinions and views as an academic, maybe? Again, this is not the sort of thing I want to waste my Sunday discussing -- Rice's self-identification as a realist. As far as I'm concerned, with these types of basic, well-established ideas, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You can certainly argue that she doesn't act like a realist because she's enabling a disastrous foreign policy, I suppose.


[snipped]

Interesting. Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of “conflate”?

Conflate means to bring together; meld or fuse. http://www.answers.com/conflate&r=67

So when I say something is irrelevant, I am doing the exact opposite of conflate; I am instead recognizing the differences and separating the issues.

Perhaps you should look up "misunderstand"?

The word "conflate" was wholly appropriate; look over the threading. There are a number of different topics under discussion -- not simply this "paper tiger" business. I offered supporting example of how a power would inflate it's military prowess (Iran's questionable torpedoes). You made a comment -- after accusing me of a "thread derail" -- relating my remark to something that was never intended.

[snipped- already discusssed]

Yes. You have yet to justify your “paper tiger” claim. If you believe it has been used by Islamists since Afghanistan, please cite your source.

Which is precisely what I did in my original post -- now bastardized beyond all recognition:

Here's the final paragraph:

Country's often have to "kick some ass" every once in demonstration of military might, projecting power, showing whose boss. This was probably one of the lesser motivations for war. Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages [them -- specificially, opposition forces in Iraq] to view us as a "paper tiger."

You never for a moment substantively dealt with this claim. I've looked over that entire post. It would be unnecessary (and unseemly) to boast it has "held up marvelously" because it never contained anything too provocative.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's easier than "US citizens", and USAians was never a goer.

I admit that these don't trip off the tongue very well. Maybe "US-ers"? Not really poetic, but at least it's short.

I can't find it in me to restrict "American" to citizens of the United States "of America" (a tad presumptious, don't you think?).

I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe. I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision. The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.

I use " 'Murrican" because "Yank" has its own problems, and isn't used by 'Murricans.

It does get used, but "Yank" can mean a particular subset, so I understand not wanting to use that either.

It's entirely neutral, has no implications at all, and is precise.

But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.

 

[Ziggurat]

The current US adventurism is going to be abandoned sometime soon, and the best hope for Latin America, IMO, is an isolationist reaction. What you don't want is the US retreating across the Oceans to concentrate "on their own back-yard".

The projected fence on the Mexican border is a good sign of isolationist thinking.

Decreased US government involvement with Latin America might be a good thing, but trade barriers aren't. Isolationist impulses can bring both. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Giz]

This is impossibly silly. The problem is not evidence, but your stilted view of the world. You think Muslims are just crazy and suicidal, and that those in charge of Iran are not also political actors who respond to exogenous incentives. Yeah, what's my evidence -- apart from the crazy assumption that they don't want their country decimated.
.

Sometimes regimes do make miscalculations that get themselves decimated. See Japan circa 1941.

 

[Luciana]

No, I mean more than that: I mean that in fact, not just in policy, we have not at any point acted to try to de-nuclearize any of the states classified as nuclear powers under the NPT.

The US has tried to keep under strict controls the nuclear programs of both Brazil and Argentina, especifically pressuring other countries to not collaborate in their programs and trying to restrict their access to many stages of the process. When you say de-nuclearize, I agree, but it is not as if the US has not tried to intervene with nuclear programs around the world. Au contraire. Brazil has the full cycle despite US's wishes.

Nor could we be expected to remain neutral if Brazil or any other country hinted that they would violate a treaty they had with us, which is what Brazil acquiring nuclear weapons would amount to.

Also, no. Brazil was bound to a treaty involving Latin American countries, the Tlatelolco treaty. I do not doubt for a second that the US would have kicked and screamed (or threatened to cut cooperation in many areas, raise tariffs, ridicule the country or even threaten to denounce it in the UN... the usual) if Brazil had even hinted it wanted a bomb.

 

[Ziggurat]

When you say de-nuclearize, I agree, but it is not as if the US has not tried to intervene with nuclear programs around the world.

Yes, you are correct.

Also, no. Brazil was bound to a treaty involving Latin American countries, the Tlatelolco treaty.

I am not familiar with that treaty. But whatever obligations that treaty puts on them, it cannot remove obligations they have under the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty), a treaty that they did sign along with the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Are you saying you think that this Tlatelolco treaty nullifies my point that the US would and should object if we thought Brazil would violate treaty obligations it had under the NPT? If so, I don't understand why you would think that, and if not, then we're just talking past each other and don't actually have a substantive disagreement on that point.

 

[Luciana]

I am not familiar with that treaty. But whatever obligations that treaty puts on them, it cannot remove obligations they have under the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty), a treaty that they did sign along with the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Brazil only signed it much later, in 1997 (ha! thought it was 1992! thanks google saints), exactly because, at that time, it was avoiding to come under the US's pressure, after all, it had signed a treaty (Tlatelolco) stating Brazil would never develop a nuclear weapon.

Are you saying you think that this Tlatelolco treaty nullifies my point that the US would and should object if we thought Brazil would violate treaty obligations it had under the NPT? If so, I don't understand why you would think that, and if not, then we're just talking past each other and don't actually have a substantive disagreement on that point.

No, no, "pacta sunt servanda" is sacred and no country should disrespect a treaty it signed willingly. If it does, it should suffer sanctions. I think my true point - never underestimate US's nosiness in other countries' business.

(yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing!)

On a related note, is the US obeying the NPTs aspects regarding "diminishing number of nuclear weapons"? I don't know (as in "I really don't", not suggesting anything). But then, international law is only for the weak, the US can break this or any other treaty and get away with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

On a related note, is the US obeying the NPTs aspects regarding "diminishing number of nuclear weapons"? I don't know (as in "I really don't", not suggesting anything). But then, international law is only for the weak, the US can break this or any other treaty and get away with that.

IIRC, our arsenal is down quite a bit from its peak. My understanding of this part of the treaty, though, is that this obligation isn't spelled out in detail (no timelines, no criteria for how much reduction is sufficient, etc.) and is essentially unenforceable even from a legal standpoint. In which case, the double standard isn't so much the US (and the other nuclear powers, BTW) breaking the treaty so much as having made a treaty which favors them to begin with. That's the way of all treaties - those with the upper hand going in get better terms.

 

[Mycroft]

This is particularly sad sophistry. You choose one definition from three...

Oh bull-crap. Everything I said works just as well with the other two definitions. I quoted just the one for brevity.

For example:

Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles. (the part you excluded)

Prominence, distinction and importance are all words that have meaning in comparison to other things. If you have a “position of prestige in diplomatic circles” it implies there are others in those same circles who don’t have the same level, as well some that might exceed your prestige.

Nice try, though.

 

[Mike B.]

I admit that these don't trip off the tongue very well. Maybe "US-ers"? Not really poetic, but at least it's short.



I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe. I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision. The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.



It does get used, but "Yank" can mean a particular subset, so I understand not wanting to use that either.



But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.

Of course, as you say 'merican has the same problem as American, but hey my guess from past experience you will get the usual bait and switch, answers to arguements nobody made, and his indulgence in his own bigotry. If you don't believe that, check out this quote about 'Mericans from CD:

"You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played."

Of course, it is "nuetral."

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, as you say 'merican has the same problem as American,

I want to note that the term he used is 'Murrican, not 'merican. When intended as an insult, this distinction matters - it becomes a mispronunciation which implies an inability to enunciate correctly on the part of Americans, which in turn is part of the negative connotations of stupidity and oafishness. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, but we'll see.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I understood you said it was never US's policy to oppose other countries from having nuclear weapons. And I said the US took effective measures to prevent Brazil from having uranium enrichment. So yes, it's not the same, but my train of thought is quite obvious - if instead of having denied vehemently any desire of having nuclear weapons Brazil had hinted it might build it one day... do you think the US would have remained neutral? I don't think so.

Btw, there are rumours that both Brazil and Argentina started to develop the bomb in the 1980s and only dropped the initiative in the early 1990s. But there is no evidence for this. Some swear it existed, but the final word today is that no one knows or wants to talk about it. Those nukes are like UFO sightings, and you only get blurry pictures.

it may not be US policy per se but it is certainly policy - its called the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It may "more honour'd in the breach, than the observance" but it nevertheless international policy.

 

[Grammatron]

Excellent post. Very educational. 'Murricans seem to have little interest in their neighbours these days. Which is probably good for the neighbours.

Evidence?

 

[Grammatron]

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons. And while we would have liked it had the USSR never aquired them (it's simple foolishness to want your enemies as well-armed as you), we never took the position that they could not be allowed to get them. So your question doesn't make any sense to begin with, unless you add a rather critical disclaimer: namely the word "specific", as in "specific other countries".

Well, Cuba comes up as an example.

US has never been happy with countries who are not on friendly terms having nuclear weapons. And has gone out of its way to stop them many times.

That being said, Iran has agree on its own not to have nukes and in return received certain help. And now, not only they want to build nukes they are threatening neighbors with them in the same breath.

It's insane for people to think it's just words not to be taken seriously.

 

[Ralph]

Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.

I have a hard time not associating words like "annihilate" with "killing lots of people"....

Are the Iranians hard at work on developing a nerf-nuke?

 

[Beerina]

The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

It helped secure cooperation from Libya. That North Korea and now Iran are recalcitrant is more to do with their own internal politics than anything. Which, of course, is what it's all about all along.

 

[Cain]

Sometimes regimes do make miscalculations that get themselves decimated. See Japan circa 1941.

Indeed. But a misjudgement is rather than different than *wanting* to be decimated.

Beerina writes:

It helped secure cooperation from Libya.

This is certainly the line the Bush administration took. The truth is a little more complicated. Fortunately two scholars from the Brookings Institute had an op-ed in the NYT shortly after Bush's trumpeting, and they put the public turn of events into context by mentioning the secret diplomatic discussions with Libya that had been going on since the Clinton administration. Your line implies that Libya was stubbornly uncoopearative -- until our show of strength. The article is not in my gmail account, but a google search for: ["Diplomacy" "Brookings" "Libya"] returns this op-ed in the Financial Times from Martin Indyk:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Here's the last paragraph:

The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe.

As a 21st level pedant, I am immune to argument ad populum or whatever the term is.

I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision.

It's actually a neologism, not an abbreviation - the spelling's quite different, and it's no shorter.

The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.

The traditional "Yank" started as a neologism. All traditions start somewhere.

But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.

It seems quite affectionate to me. (Not like "Amerikan", which is somehow unpleasant.)

So were I to say, for instance, "You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played" in some context or other, there's no edge to it.

I want to note that the term he used is 'Murrican, not 'merican. When intended as an insult, this distinction matters - it becomes a mispronunciation which implies an inability to enunciate correctly on the part of Americans, which in turn is part of the negative connotations of stupidity and oafishness.

I've nothing against accents and dialects. You 'Murricans don't talk like what we do over here, but neither do we, in the main. There's no "proper" pronunciation.