[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
--- Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > *I disagree. The only countries that have recently
> > talked about the use of nuclear weapons are the
> US,
> > Britain and France.
>
> I don't get your reference to Britain, but no
> nuclear
> state has ruled out using the weapons if attacked by
> nuclear weapons.
*The British Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, went a bit
farther than that. See:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/NuclearThreatsAgainstIraq_NL25.htm
>
> > Again, I cannot help but note the
> > inconsistency in your position. Just a few posts
> > ago,you were predicting a nuclear attack by the US
> on
> > Iran.
> >
> If Iran has nukes, it is possible. As long as they
> don't, not a snowballs chance in hell as the
> Americans
> say. Even Seymour Hersh agrees on this.
*Nah. Seymour Hersh is not talking about some
hypothetical nuclear war that could happen in five or
ten years from now. He is talking about the possible
use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the coming
months. You can read his article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=10069
Your mathematical model is a bit above my head so I
will not reproduce it here. MAD is not a purely
mathematical theory of probability. If we were talking
about purely mathematical probabilities, then of
course when there is two guns it is more probable that
one will go off than when there is only one, when
there is three it is more probable than when there is
two etc. MAD is a theory that takes into account a
universal principle of human behaviour that humans are
likely to engage in actions that they perceive as
being beneficial to them and are unlikely to engage in
actions that have harmful consequences to them. This
is based on empirical observation, specifically that
the US used nuclear weapons in the situation when it
was the only power possessing them, and that neither
the US nor the USSR used nuclear weapons when the
balance of power between them was sufficiently equal
to guarantee mutual destruction. Not only did they not
use them against each other, but the balance of fear
was sufficient to deter them from using them against
third countries as well.
The problem with MAD is that the Cold War bilateral
balance - US vs. USSR or US, Britain, France vs. USSR,
China is on the way to disappearing. It is already
doubtful whether Russia or China really possess a
'second-strike capability' against the US. That means
that, if the US mounted a full-scale nuclear attack on
them (particularly a surprize one) it is doubtful that
they would retain the ability to respond in any
effective manner. On this, see:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html
We are on the way back to a 1945. situation, where one
country alone has the capacity to use nuclear weapons
with impunity. This is the real danger. I don't know
what is to be done about this, but making an already
disbalanced situation even more disbalanced does not
strike me as a wise solution.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
