[lit-ideas] Re: The Mr. Nice Guy Strategy

  • From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:48:31 +0100

Eric: "Counter-irony."

Indeed, I never thought you hadn't read the rest let alone not comprehended it.

Eric: "We don't know for sure than the human race will hobble itself in a future series of limited nuclear exchanges, so at present there is nothing
solid to justify the Draconian resolve."

Interesting. This seems a change to your approach a few years back that seemed to rest on the premise that somebody stupid would get hold of a nuke and use it. That Eric (and I don't know for sure whether this isn't the same Eric), seemed to be saying that Draconian Resolve was justified on that assumption.

Eric: "On the other hand, the outcome seems likely if nothing is done, and Mr. Nice Guy is clearly failing to advance nuclear nonproliferation."

Are you saying here that Mr Nice is equivalent to doing nothing or are there two seperate states here; doing nothing and Mr Nice doing what Mr Nice does.

The test is the outcome of course. The wrong one and we'll be regretting it, but I've a feeling that we're now regretting what came of the last bout of Draconian Resolve. Is it too early to say whether Bush was a success or a failure?

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: