Republicans against debt...but not really...

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I think overall, just defensive things always lag behind offensive for the most part..no matter how good the armor on a tank gets...the guns normally get more powerful faster to get threw it ..sure sometimes for short times the defense may get a head, but its short lived...Same with body armor...make better body armor..make better bullet...and normally the bullets are ahead of the game.

There is no doubt that countries will always look to have the upper hand, but that does not mean that defense should be discounted. Should police abandon the use of body armor simply because "better bullets" have been invented?

as for testing MAD...how would one test it? The only test i can think of that holds true..is the real world test....that says as so far..nearly 50 years since at least 2 nations have had nuclear weapons...none have ever used them on anyone..let alone a nation also holding nuclear power..Its a pretty hard think to test , to see if a leader would really make the choice to have there whole nation whipped off the face of the earth, including themselves...just to nuke someone else first.

That is my point.. you cannot test MAD, which makes it unreliable in my opinion. As for the idea that MAD works because we have not had a nuclear war, I could say we did not have a nuclear war for the last 60 years because grass is green. It is an absurd statement for sure, but it has just as much actual evidence backing it as MAD.

I would love to see no need for MAD to be tested, and have no nuclear weapons on earth...but like many things...you can't un-invent them

Why? If you believe in MAD and think its tenets hold true, then if every country possessed nuclear weapons, we would have world peace. (Assuming issues with delivery systems and 2nd strike capability were all the same etc)

Kenneth Waltz says as much, and he is a die hard realist when it comes to foreign relations.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Why? If you believe in MAD and think its tenets hold true, then if every country possessed nuclear weapons, we would have world peace. (Assuming issues with delivery systems and 2nd strike capability were all the same etc)

Kenneth Waltz says as much, and he is a die hard realist when it comes to foreign relations.

It would be much like every cowboy in the saloon with a six shooter pointed at every other cowboy in the saloon, and no one with the nerve to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, we do have crazy people in charge of some nations (Iran, NK), and it only takes one cowboy to break the stalemate.

Maybe one day humankind will figure out how to put down the six shooters and have a real peace. Maybe humans won't be an evolutionary dead end after all.

Or not. Who knows?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

It would be much like every cowboy in the saloon with a six shooter pointed at every other cowboy in the saloon, and no one with the nerve to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, we do have crazy people in charge of some nations (Iran, NK), and it only takes one cowboy to break the stalemate.

Maybe one day humankind will figure out how to put down the six shooters and have a real peace. Maybe humans won't be an evolutionary dead end after all.

Or not. Who knows?

But what is rational? If we define rational (buying into Graham Allison's argument, then a rational actor on the world stage is:

1) Governments are treated as the primary actor.
2) The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff.

Now, what have Iran and North Korea done, that under this guideline, you would call irrational?

Maybe you would argue their gamesmanship on the world stage is "irrational", but consider this argument from Thomas Schelling:

you're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?

Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win.

Are you "irrational" because you are dancing next to the edge of a cliff which might kill you both, or does it make you rational, because you are acting quite rationally by making the other person think you are irrational, and therefore do what you want?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

But what is rational? If we define rational (buying into Graham Allison's argument, then a rational actor on the world stage is:

1) Governments are treated as the primary actor.
2) The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff.

Now, what have Iran and North Korea done, that under this guideline, you would call irrational?

Maybe you would argue their gamesmanship on the world stage is "irrational", but consider this argument from Thomas Schelling:



Are you "irrational" because you are dancing next to the edge of a cliff which might kill you both, or does it make you rational, because you are acting quite rationally by making the other person think you are irrational, and therefore do what you want?

It's more like the irrational mouse that nips the sleeping cat. The cat will heal, but the mouse never will.

NK can't kill the hated "west", but the west coiuld turn NK into a glass parking lot. Iran can't destroy the infidel, but the infidel could destroy it. As long as the leaders of those two nations understand that, and dance only so close to the cliff, then they are acting rationally. When they go beyond that, they are not. Personally, I'd not want to bet on the rationality of either Akmadinajad or Kim Jung Un. Would you?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

It's more like the irrational mouse that nips the sleeping cat. The cat will heal, but the mouse never will.

NK can't kill the hated "west", but the west coiuld turn NK into a glass parking lot. Iran can't destroy the infidel, but the infidel could destroy it. As long as the leaders of those two nations understand that, and dance only so close to the cliff, then they are acting rationally. When they go beyond that, they are not. Personally, I'd not want to bet on the rationality of either Akmadinajad or Kim Jung Un. Would you?

It sounds like you are saying that irrational actors can be molded into acting rationally based on the presence of nuclear weapons.

To me, that just sounds like a Waltz argument in which if all nations possessed nuclear weapons, fear of destruction would mold even irrational actors into acting rationally...

As for "betting on the rationality" of the leaders of Iran and North Korea, you argued in your above statement that they have only are acting irrationally when they "go beyond" dancing so close to the cliff. That would imply that they have done so before and in essence "jumped off."

Where are the real world examples of that? Without them, Iran and North Korea have not actually pulled anyone off the cliff, and hence are not acting irrationally.

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

It sounds like you are saying that irrational actors can be molded into acting rationally based on the presence of nuclear weapons.

To me, that just sounds like a Waltz argument in which if all nations possessed nuclear weapons, fear of destruction would mold even irrational actors into acting rationally...

As for "betting on the rationality" of the leaders of Iran and North Korea, you argued in your above statement that they have only are acting irrationally when they "go beyond" dancing so close to the cliff. That would imply that they have done so before and in essence "jumped off."

Where are the real world examples of that? Without them, Iran and North Korea have not actually pulled anyone off the cliff, and hence are not acting irrationally.

Well said.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

It sounds like you are saying that irrational actors can be molded into acting rationally based on the presence of nuclear weapons.

To me, that just sounds like a Waltz argument in which if all nations possessed nuclear weapons, fear of destruction would mold even irrational actors into acting rationally...

Actually, no, quite the opposite. I was questioning whether either of the two examples could be counted on to act rationally, nuclear weapons or no. I'm not convinced that irrational leaders would act rationally because of the fear of destruction.

As for "betting on the rationality" of the leaders of Iran and North Korea, you argued in your above statement that they have only are acting irrationally when they "go beyond" dancing so close to the cliff. That would imply that they have done so before and in essence "jumped off."

Where are the real world examples of that? Without them, Iran and North Korea have not actually pulled anyone off the cliff, and hence are not acting irrationally.

So far, given the argument that they are acting rationally so long as they don't bring on their own destruction, then they are acting rationally. If you hold them to a little bit higher standards, however, their actions don't seem quite so rational. In the case of NK in particular, can't their leaders see that their cousins to the south are living far better than they are? Why do they continue to do what they've been doing? That doesn't sound very rational to me.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Actually, no, quite the opposite. I was questioning whether either of the two examples could be counted on to act rationally, nuclear weapons or no. I'm not convinced that irrational leaders would act rationally because of the fear of destruction.

You said:
"NK can't kill the hated "west", but the west coiuld turn NK into a glass parking lot. Iran can't destroy the infidel, but the infidel could destroy it. As long as the leaders of those two nations understand that, and dance only so close to the cliff, then they are acting rationally. When they go beyond that, they are not."

I question where you would argue they have gone over that cliff? Otherwise, you are simply calling someone who has been acting rationally irrational based on nothing.

So far, given the argument that they are acting rationally so long as they don't bring on their own destruction, then they are acting rationally. If you hold them to a little bit higher standards, however, their actions don't seem quite so rational. In the case of NK in particular, can't their leaders see that their cousins to the south are living far better than they are? Why do they continue to do what they've been doing? That doesn't sound very rational to me.

You can't argue "rationality" based on our "standards." As for North Korea, their "leaders" are living quite well. I am not sure you can argue that North Korean leadership is irrational because they don't pursue a policy that is economically beneficial to their subjects.

If you look at Graham Allison's criteria of rationality:
1) The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff."

If you look at the North Korean example through this lens, what is their goal? Arguably it is to maintain a great lifestyle for the leadership and the elite at the expense of the people. Their actions to date fit right into that model. Is it irrational to set goals and then achieve them?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

You said:
"NK can't kill the hated "west", but the west coiuld turn NK into a glass parking lot. Iran can't destroy the infidel, but the infidel could destroy it. As long as the leaders of those two nations understand that, and dance only so close to the cliff, then they are acting rationally. When they go beyond that, they are not."

I question where you would argue they have gone over that cliff? Otherwise, you are simply calling someone who has been acting rationally irrational based on nothing.




You can't argue "rationality" based on our "standards." As for North Korea, their "leaders" are living quite well. I am not sure you can argue that North Korean leadership is irrational because they don't pursue a policy that is economically beneficial to their subjects.

If you look at Graham Allison's criteria of rationality:
1) The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff."

If you look at the North Korean example through this lens, what is their goal? Arguably it is to maintain a great lifestyle for the leadership and the elite at the expense of the people. Their actions to date fit right into that model. Is it irrational to set goals and then achieve them?

So, based on that, the leaders of NK and Iran are perfectly rational? If rational means that they haven't yet destroyed their nations, then I suppose so. Now, back to the original premise of MAD keeping the world from war, would such leaders be rational enough not to start hostilities with a nation that can destroy them?

Maybe so. So far, they haven't attacked the west or the infidel in a way that would result in a full scale retaliation, at least not yet.

Still, somehow I have a hard time thinking of Akmadinajad or Kim Jung Il (or Un) as rational, thinking people. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

So, based on that, the leaders of NK and Iran are perfectly rational? If rational means that they haven't yet destroyed their nations, then I suppose so. Now, back to the original premise of MAD keeping the world from war, would such leaders be rational enough not to start hostilities with a nation that can destroy them?

How would you define rationality?

Maybe so. So far, they haven't attacked the west or the infidel in a way that would result in a full scale retaliation, at least not yet.

And if they were acting irrationally, it would seem they would attack regardless and ignore the outcome right?

Still, somehow I have a hard time thinking of Akmadinajad or Kim Jung Il (or Un) as rational, thinking people. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

People can be rational, thinking people and arrive at different conclusions with examining a scenario. If rationality is defined as Allison puts it:

"The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff."

Then both of those leaders are acting rationally. Take Iran for example, what are their goals?

1) To be a regional power
2) To promote a radical religious agenda (you might argue)
3) Whatever you want to put

Look at it now through Allison's description. If their goal is the be a regional power, what better way than the pursue a nuclear weapon, and create instability in Iraq etc?

For North Korea, perhaps their goal is to get things from the West. What better way to do that than by creating international incidents (ie nuclear weapon test, attacking South Korea)..

A rational person is not someone who acts in the manner we think that they should act in, a rational person is someone who can establish goals and then logically achieve those goals in the most effective manner...arguably both NK and Iran are doing, and have done, just that.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

How would you define rationality?



And if they were acting irrationally, it would seem they would attack regardless and ignore the outcome right?



People can be rational, thinking people and arrive at different conclusions with examining a scenario. If rationality is defined as Allison puts it:

"The government examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that has the highest "payoff."

Then both of those leaders are acting rationally. Take Iran for example, what are their goals?

1) To be a regional power
2) To promote a radical religious agenda (you might argue)
3) Whatever you want to put

Look at it now through Allison's description. If their goal is the be a regional power, what better way than the pursue a nuclear weapon, and create instability in Iraq etc?

For North Korea, perhaps their goal is to get things from the West. What better way to do that than by creating international incidents (ie nuclear weapon test, attacking South Korea)..

A rational person is not someone who acts in the manner we think that they should act in, a rational person is someone who can establish goals and then logically achieve those goals in the most effective manner...arguably both NK and Iran are doing, and have done, just that.

I suppose if you look at it that way, then even the leaders of NK and Iran are rational, at least from their own point of view.

What, if any, world leaders are irrational, then?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I suppose if you look at it that way, then even the leaders of NK and Iran are rational, at least from their own point of view.

What, if any, world leaders are irrational, then?

More importantly, how would you define rationality?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

More importantly, how would you define rationality?

How about operating in the real world, the one where there really was a Jewish holocaust, where human rights are important, where a little tinpot dictator has trashed the economy (NK) to the point that the people don't have enough to eat without accepting charity from other nations?

Yes, I'd say a willingness to accept reality is a sign of rationality.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

How about operating in the real world, the one where there really was a Jewish holocaust, where human rights are important, where a little tinpot dictator has trashed the economy (NK) to the point that the people don't have enough to eat without accepting charity from other nations?

Simply denying the existence of something does not equate to irrationality. There has to be more to it than that...

Otherwise when the United States turns a blind eye to human rights abuses worldwide, and when Secretary of State Clinton goes to China and says "There are more important things in this relationship than human rights", then the United States is acting irrationally.

If however, you claim there was no holocaust because it scores you major political points back home with the hardline elements within your own country so you can maintain your power... is that really a sign of irrationality?

As for NK, is it irrational for the government to ensure its own survival at the expense of its people? There are many countries that rely on foreign assistance to get by, yet those are not considered "irrational". Why not?

Additionally, arguably a government that maintains its survival at the expense of its people is not a government that would go out and commit suicide (so to speak) by invading South Korea etc...If they are so concerned about their survival domestically, why does that not translate into their international behavior?

Yes, I'd say a willingness to accept reality is a sign of rationality.

A "sign" of rationality... I don't know what that means. That said, we need also face up to reality and realize that people do many things for many different reasons.. It does not make you irrational to do something that appears "crazy" if you are doing it to maintain power etc..

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Simply denying the existence of something does not equate to irrationality. There has to be more to it than that...

I'm not so sure. Denying the existence of something that you know darned well exists is not rational. Of course, if Akmadinajad is simply denying the holocaust to score political points, then that might not be irrational on his part. If Kim Jung Un is denying hunger in his own country, or his nation's helplessness against more powerful foes in order to hang on to power, maybe that is not irrational on his part either.

Denying plain facts is not rational, but just saying that you're denying them in order to score points with irrational people may be. Do you think that is what the leaders of Iran and NK are doing?

I'm pretty sure we have political pundits in this country that pretend to deny plain facts in order to score political points, too, even when they know darned well that they're just spouting nonsense.

Are there any other world leaders you would point to as irrational, or are they all perfectly sane?