6 ms·

The Lesson from Libya: Get Nuclear Weapons

63 points by mryall 16y ago

zdw 16y ago
U.S. government officials say it over and over again: we don't oppose countries like Iraq, Libya and Iran having WMD because we're scared they're going to attack us with them. Instead, we oppose them having WMD because that would allow them to deter us from attacking them. That sounds about right... Makes you wonder if the world would be a more peaceful, but more dictatorial and regimented place if everyone had nukes.
- webXL 16y ago
  And if everyone had guns, you could cross off dictatorial. Thugs, both state and tribal, don't bat an eye when thinking about getting their hands on a gun. For peaceful, law abiding folks, however, it's a huge hassle.
- trevelyan 16y ago
  Kenneth Waltz has argued nuclear weapons spread peace. The strongest evidence supporting him is the lack of any nuclear conflict in the last sixty years and the way the weapons have brought peace between India and Pakistan. If he is right the best prospects for long-term peace in the middle east will probably come through a nuclear-armed Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz That said, there are two core ironies in the politics of proliferation that make this suggestion uncomfortable. The first is that at least at present the most vehement opponents of nuclear proliferation are often the most vocal critics of gun control. So few people who talk about the importance (or insignificance) of deterrence really seem to believe it logically. The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based models of deterrence is not peace, but random violence. The reason for this is that a certain amount of "demonstrated irrationality" is required to make the prospect of mutual assured destruction convincing to all players. Which means that if the world were truly rational we would expect some use of nuclear devices. And yet we don't see any, or haven't seen any yet. All of which leads us to the strange observation that nuclear proliferation seems to bring peace, but not because of a rational deterrent effect.
  - plinkplonk 16y ago
    "the weapons have brought peace between India and Pakistan." only if the Kargil War(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War), which took place when both countries had nukes is ignored. I am not contesting your larger point. Just reacting to "brought peace" which is not quite true. Nukes do prevent total, all out war to the death between Pakistan and India at present. But a declared war in which soldiers die, and Pakistan's ISI sponsoring continuous terrorist attacks in India, and India supporting Anti-Pakistan elements in Afghanistan is not really "peace" (By contrast, England and France are at peace with each other, say, though they have fought each other many times in the past). What exists between India and Pakistan is just a different form of war. The relations between Pakistan and India are at best described as "no war, no peace"
  - mryall 16y ago
    > The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based models of deterrence is not peace, but random violence. Do you have a citation for that? I'd be interested to read further about it.
    - trevelyan 16y ago
      I think I got it from Robert Powell's stuff: http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php?person=278 http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php...
dublinclontarf 16y ago
No, the lesson is if there is a revolution in your country, dont try to wipe it out with brute force. At least be mkre sneaky about it.
- trustfundbaby 16y ago
  ... if you have oil
  - tzs 16y ago
    Nonsense. From an oil point of view, the US is better off if the dictator wins.
harshpotatoes 16y ago
The article focuses on Libya and Iraq, but forgets about Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons have done little to prevent CIA drones from killing terrorists and the occaisional civillian within pakistan's borders.
- blasdel 16y ago
  Why would the people in charge in Pakistan want to do that? We're funneling them billions of dollars in aid money, they're a client state of the US. Aid was cut off briefly over 30 years ago when their nuclear program became public, but started right back up again so they could back the Taliban against the Soviets for us.
- shawndrost 16y ago
  It's very likely that Pakistan has covertly approved those drones. Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks but has secretly shared intelligence with Americans[8] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi airfield in Pakistan.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
- tzs 16y ago
  Isn't that mostly happening in the tribal regions that are pretty much part of Pakistan in name only?
knowtheory 16y ago
This article is so terribly framed it hurts my brain, and my ability to respond. Even if nuclear and chemical weapons were a pretext to attack Saddam Hussein, the reason the US attacked him was, ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible). The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat. That Gaddafi was rehabilitated at the behest of international business interests doesn't mean that he was any less of a murderous bastard or any less of a social pariah. In so far as the lesson is "if you're a douchebag (as defined by the UN) the international community may try to pwn your ass", then, sure one might view nuclear and chemical weapons as a deterrent against international attacks. However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US. Also, please note that giving up nuclear and chemical weapons were never promised as some sort of carte blanche get out of jail free card from the international community. All international agreements are ultimately contingent, the question is how much shit has to change between now and the point where your agreement would fall apart that dictates how strong and resilient your agreement is. Gaddafi's no chump, he knows nobody likes him, or he wouldn't be such a paranoid mofo. Likewise, Iran and North Korea know how distrusted they are by NATO nations. North Korea is a particular instructive example, as they did go through a period of disarmament and verification, only to renege on their agreements. They got what they wanted from the international community, and after their incentives changed (presumably things weren't as dire as they were before), they told everyone to go fuck themselves.
- trustfundbaby 16y ago
  Your argument is poorly put together sir. > the reason the US attacked him was (Hussein), ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible) > The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat ---- So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked ... he is so much of a 'threat' (defined as vaguely as possible) that he makes surrounding Arab states nervous ... (see wikileaks for reference) > However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. --- Yep ... but he didn't have nuclear weapons did he? >In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US. ----- I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons The central point of the article is pretty solid ... if you have nuclear weapons or even look like you have them, America isn't coming after you. The part about them getting you to disarm so they can attack you is a bit of a stretch though.
lionhearted 16y ago
99% of the time, not watching the news is awesome. Most of it is noise that obscures what's actually happening - you do much better by studying history than watching the news. For instance, you'd do well to study the history of financial crises during one, instead of watching the news. The news say that armageddon is coming, whereas history says buy stocks after the crash. Though occasionally, you do get bushwhacked - the thought process goes like this: "WTF? My country is bombing Libya? google... google... Huh, my country is bombing Libya." Analysis - I think the article makes some good points, but the conclusion is overly simplistic. In terms of securing their current government, a regime hostile to the USA needs to look at a few factors, such as: 1. Are they on the US leadership's radar already? 2. Does US leadership believe the USA has enough resources to to make war on them without excessively compromising the economy or military capability elsewhere? 3. Could further arming provide a casus belli for an administration that already wants to make war? 4. What's the US leadership's current geopolitical strategy for the area? North Korea is interesting because they have the fourth largest military in the world, and they've got ballistic missiles pointed at two of America's closest allies in Asia - Japan and South Korea. A coalition could absolutely defeat North Korea, but at huge potential costs, nuclear weapons aside. So in their case, yes, arming with nuclear weapons probably helps their security, especially while America is already in two deep military conflicts. (Note: I'm being descriptive here, not proscriptive. Obviously I think North Korea having nuclear weapons is a bad thing) On the flipside a lot of petty regimes like Cuba and Venezuela are mildly hostile to the USA but not on American leadership's radar as a threat and the American people would be against a war with them. In their case, arming with nuclear weapons would be a very dangerous gamble - they're basically safe from any U.S. offensive action at this point, but you'd be provoking a still very fierce tiger if you tried to get nuclear arms. Especially Cuba - I think American discovery of nuclear armament in Cuba would result in a near instant invasion. The regimes and governments with the most interesting questions to ask themselves are the ones that are loosely aligned with the USA right now, but stand a very good chance of having hostile relations later. My gut reaction is that places like Saudi Arabian and Pakistan become more domestically secure against American action with nuclear weapons, but arming is risky - if American intelligence, leadership, or media happened to discover some blatant financing or backing of terrorism or insurgency around the same time the nuclear program was discovered, they might find themselves occupied. They're already next door to regions we're at war, so it doesn't even open another front and the key supply chains are already in place... U.S. leadership might decide they'd prefer to install more explicitly friendly leadership in those places if they tried to arm up. In regards to Iran, I think it's point #4 - "What's the US leadership's current geopolitical strategy for the area?" My take is that the American leadership really wants the Iranian leadership out, but they think it's going to happen organically pretty soon and don't want to give the regime an external enemy to fight for unity's sake. Though, I think some of the more public war-dogging Iran was doing during Bush's administration was crazy - that administration seemed to really want to attack Iran, especially if operations had gone more smoothly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
jmspring 16y ago
The bulk of US Foreign policy can be summed up in -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick%20Forgien%20Policy http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick...
bluekeybox 16y ago
For any projection of power, however well grounded, there will always be a seemingly well-reasoned rebuttal of its legitimacy. There are a lot of people out there who want to stick it to the U.S. just for playing a power game regardless of grounds for said power game. These people will always find a way to make the power game look bad, since by its very nature power is susceptible to such criticism. At this point, I am just starting to ignore these people because I have learned that the number one reason people criticize someone exercising power is because they want the power exclusively for themselves. Power is neither good nor bad; power is power. What should be criticized is brutality.

63 points by mryall 16y ago

zdw 16y ago

U.S. government officials say it over and over again: we don't oppose countries like Iraq, Libya and Iran having WMD because we're scared they're going to attack us with them. Instead, we oppose them having WMD because that would allow them to deter us from attacking them. That sounds about right... Makes you wonder if the world would be a more peaceful, but more dictatorial and regimented place if everyone had nukes.

webXL 16y ago
And if everyone had guns, you could cross off dictatorial. Thugs, both state and tribal, don't bat an eye when thinking about getting their hands on a gun. For peaceful, law abiding folks, however, it's a huge hassle.
trevelyan 16y ago
Kenneth Waltz has argued nuclear weapons spread peace. The strongest evidence supporting him is the lack of any nuclear conflict in the last sixty years and the way the weapons have brought peace between India and Pakistan. If he is right the best prospects for long-term peace in the middle east will probably come through a nuclear-armed Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz That said, there are two core ironies in the politics of proliferation that make this suggestion uncomfortable. The first is that at least at present the most vehement opponents of nuclear proliferation are often the most vocal critics of gun control. So few people who talk about the importance (or insignificance) of deterrence really seem to believe it logically. The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based models of deterrence is not peace, but random violence. The reason for this is that a certain amount of "demonstrated irrationality" is required to make the prospect of mutual assured destruction convincing to all players. Which means that if the world were truly rational we would expect some use of nuclear devices. And yet we don't see any, or haven't seen any yet. All of which leads us to the strange observation that nuclear proliferation seems to bring peace, but not because of a rational deterrent effect.
- plinkplonk 16y ago
  "the weapons have brought peace between India and Pakistan." only if the Kargil War(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War), which took place when both countries had nukes is ignored. I am not contesting your larger point. Just reacting to "brought peace" which is not quite true. Nukes do prevent total, all out war to the death between Pakistan and India at present. But a declared war in which soldiers die, and Pakistan's ISI sponsoring continuous terrorist attacks in India, and India supporting Anti-Pakistan elements in Afghanistan is not really "peace" (By contrast, England and France are at peace with each other, say, though they have fought each other many times in the past). What exists between India and Pakistan is just a different form of war. The relations between Pakistan and India are at best described as "no war, no peace"
- mryall 16y ago
  > The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based models of deterrence is not peace, but random violence. Do you have a citation for that? I'd be interested to read further about it.
  - trevelyan 16y ago
    I think I got it from Robert Powell's stuff: http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php?person=278 http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php...

dublinclontarf 16y ago

No, the lesson is if there is a revolution in your country, dont try to wipe it out with brute force. At least be mkre sneaky about it.

trustfundbaby 16y ago
... if you have oil
- tzs 16y ago
  Nonsense. From an oil point of view, the US is better off if the dictator wins.

harshpotatoes 16y ago

The article focuses on Libya and Iraq, but forgets about Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons have done little to prevent CIA drones from killing terrorists and the occaisional civillian within pakistan's borders.

blasdel 16y ago
Why would the people in charge in Pakistan want to do that? We're funneling them billions of dollars in aid money, they're a client state of the US. Aid was cut off briefly over 30 years ago when their nuclear program became public, but started right back up again so they could back the Taliban against the Soviets for us.
shawndrost 16y ago
It's very likely that Pakistan has covertly approved those drones. Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks but has secretly shared intelligence with Americans[8] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi airfield in Pakistan.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
tzs 16y ago
Isn't that mostly happening in the tribal regions that are pretty much part of Pakistan in name only?

knowtheory 16y ago

This article is so terribly framed it hurts my brain, and my ability to respond. Even if nuclear and chemical weapons were a pretext to attack Saddam Hussein, the reason the US attacked him was, ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible). The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat. That Gaddafi was rehabilitated at the behest of international business interests doesn't mean that he was any less of a murderous bastard or any less of a social pariah. In so far as the lesson is "if you're a douchebag (as defined by the UN) the international community may try to pwn your ass", then, sure one might view nuclear and chemical weapons as a deterrent against international attacks. However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US. Also, please note that giving up nuclear and chemical weapons were never promised as some sort of carte blanche get out of jail free card from the international community. All international agreements are ultimately contingent, the question is how much shit has to change between now and the point where your agreement would fall apart that dictates how strong and resilient your agreement is. Gaddafi's no chump, he knows nobody likes him, or he wouldn't be such a paranoid mofo. Likewise, Iran and North Korea know how distrusted they are by NATO nations. North Korea is a particular instructive example, as they did go through a period of disarmament and verification, only to renege on their agreements. They got what they wanted from the international community, and after their incentives changed (presumably things weren't as dire as they were before), they told everyone to go fuck themselves.

trustfundbaby 16y ago
Your argument is poorly put together sir. > the reason the US attacked him was (Hussein), ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible) > The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat ---- So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked ... he is so much of a 'threat' (defined as vaguely as possible) that he makes surrounding Arab states nervous ... (see wikileaks for reference) > However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. --- Yep ... but he didn't have nuclear weapons did he? >In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US. ----- I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons The central point of the article is pretty solid ... if you have nuclear weapons or even look like you have them, America isn't coming after you. The part about them getting you to disarm so they can attack you is a bit of a stretch though.

lionhearted 16y ago

99% of the time, not watching the news is awesome. Most of it is noise that obscures what's actually happening - you do much better by studying history than watching the news. For instance, you'd do well to study the history of financial crises during one, instead of watching the news. The news say that armageddon is coming, whereas history says buy stocks after the crash. Though occasionally, you do get bushwhacked - the thought process goes like this: "WTF? My country is bombing Libya? google... google... Huh, my country is bombing Libya." Analysis - I think the article makes some good points, but the conclusion is overly simplistic. In terms of securing their current government, a regime hostile to the USA needs to look at a few factors, such as: 1. Are they on the US leadership's radar already? 2. Does US leadership believe the USA has enough resources to to make war on them without excessively compromising the economy or military capability elsewhere? 3. Could further arming provide a casus belli for an administration that already wants to make war? 4. What's the US leadership's current geopolitical strategy for the area? North Korea is interesting because they have the fourth largest military in the world, and they've got ballistic missiles pointed at two of America's closest allies in Asia - Japan and South Korea. A coalition could absolutely defeat North Korea, but at huge potential costs, nuclear weapons aside. So in their case, yes, arming with nuclear weapons probably helps their security, especially while America is already in two deep military conflicts. (Note: I'm being descriptive here, not proscriptive. Obviously I think North Korea having nuclear weapons is a bad thing) On the flipside a lot of petty regimes like Cuba and Venezuela are mildly hostile to the USA but not on American leadership's radar as a threat and the American people would be against a war with them. In their case, arming with nuclear weapons would be a very dangerous gamble - they're basically safe from any U.S. offensive action at this point, but you'd be provoking a still very fierce tiger if you tried to get nuclear arms. Especially Cuba - I think American discovery of nuclear armament in Cuba would result in a near instant invasion. The regimes and governments with the most interesting questions to ask themselves are the ones that are loosely aligned with the USA right now, but stand a very good chance of having hostile relations later. My gut reaction is that places like Saudi Arabian and Pakistan become more domestically secure against American action with nuclear weapons, but arming is risky - if American intelligence, leadership, or media happened to discover some blatant financing or backing of terrorism or insurgency around the same time the nuclear program was discovered, they might find themselves occupied. They're already next door to regions we're at war, so it doesn't even open another front and the key supply chains are already in place... U.S. leadership might decide they'd prefer to install more explicitly friendly leadership in those places if they tried to arm up. In regards to Iran, I think it's point #4 - "What's the US leadership's current geopolitical strategy for the area?" My take is that the American leadership really wants the Iranian leadership out, but they think it's going to happen organically pretty soon and don't want to give the regime an external enemy to fight for unity's sake. Though, I think some of the more public war-dogging Iran was doing during Bush's administration was crazy - that administration seemed to really want to attack Iran, especially if operations had gone more smoothly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

jmspring 16y ago

The bulk of US Foreign policy can be summed up in -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick%20Forgien%20Policy http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick...

bluekeybox 16y ago

For any projection of power, however well grounded, there will always be a seemingly well-reasoned rebuttal of its legitimacy. There are a lot of people out there who want to stick it to the U.S. just for playing a power game regardless of grounds for said power game. These people will always find a way to make the power game look bad, since by its very nature power is susceptible to such criticism. At this point, I am just starting to ignore these people because I have learned that the number one reason people criticize someone exercising power is because they want the power exclusively for themselves. Power is neither good nor bad; power is power. What should be criticized is brutality.