3 ms·
Quite the opposite. Firstly, despotic regimes are by their nature control driven, one common characteristic of which is an inability to act without central dire
by rrggrr 10y ago
Quite the opposite. Firstly, despotic regimes are by their nature control driven, one common characteristic of which is an inability to act without central directives from leadership. Iraq is a classic case. Despotic regimes persist for the purposes of preserving and enriching the despot, where even the intent to use nuclear arms in an age of deterrence is extremely counter-productive to that goal. North Korea, Russia and other nations demonstrate the futility of preventing proliferation. But there has been some success in educating fledgling nuclear states on safeguards (reportedly Pakistan). If you can't eliminate it, mitigate it as best you can and manage the risks.
- narag 10y agoone common characteristic of which is an inability to act without central directives from leadership Yes, very paralizing when there's a shortage of central directives. Not so much when the leadership is happy to show his initiative. What did you think of the innovation of executing high officials using a cannon?
- zalg0 10y agoI am dubious. Mostly, because preserving and enriching a despot means catering to their whims. A despot's pet nuclear project is likely to have an authentic red button (provided in any variety of interfaces, telephone, mechanical lock and key, fingerprint authenticated, whatever). If one imagines themselves as a despot, the ego almost demands it. Between the despot, The Button, and the operational weapons, there are many layers of human factors. Maybe the red button is a placebo, and the underlings, being less suicidal than their singular leader, would never permit the button to perform its dreaded task, but is that assured?