[ExI] The Nuclear Huns
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Mon Sep 29 07:52:25 UTC 2008
> The problem many people on this list have is that they take the US
> point of view, even a nationalistic US point of view, for granted.
That's your perception, eh? Not mine. I feel like I'm definitely
in a minority position if I speak up for the *relatively*-good
guys (like the U.S. and Israel) against their enemies. (Or is it
untrue that these scoundrel nations actually have enemies?
Or perhaps just enemies of their own making?)
> Now, I have no doubts that it may be in the best interest of the US to
> limit, say, nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula,
No one else's? You think Japan likes the idea of "Beloved Leader"
having some nukes on hand? But the Japanese had their teeth pulled
in 1945, just as has been the fate of so many other countries. Sweden
is not the same Sweden as before Poltava. Germany is not forceful
about anything any longer, just a short 60 years after threatening the
whole world. Spirit dies, just as old people often become resigned
> but I would say that the North-Korean government has made the
> most they could of the not-so-trivial achievement (for what is ultimately
> a relatively primitive country) of establishing a nuclear technology.
Yes, and if a few million people end up dying because of it,
well, I suppose the glory of their achievement will shine
continuously ever after anyway. Now, if we can just get
the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Serbs and Croatians to
have such a fine not-so-trivial achievement.
> In fact, this is a win or win scenario for them: either North Korea
> becomes a nuclear power, with the dividends automatically paid
> by the mere fact of belonging to the club (such as becoming
> invulnerable to Iraqi-style invasions),
Sure. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Instead of bribing
them (which has failed and was so stupid), in reality, they need
to be threatened. And a threat that *will* be acted upon. If
push came to shove, they would have to do what the U.S. told
them to do.
But of course, people in the west are simply too weak, just as they
were against Hitler until it was almost too late.
> (such as becoming invulnerable to Iraqi-style invasions),
Well, they're not invulnerable now. But even if they did have
two or three nukes, "Beloved Leader" and his friends know
that they could all be killed in a single blow if a determined
U.S. chose to do it. They would back down, because as bad
as the cost would be to us, it would be infinitely worse to them.
(I mean, if we had backbone, that is.)
> with the dividends automatically paid by the mere fact of belonging
> to the club... or the powers interested in having it to waive nuclear
> weapons are bound to deliver equivalent or superior advantages.
Not sure what the last sentence meant: you mean "the powers
interested in them waiving nuclear weapons would be bound
(or likely) to deliver equivalent or superior advantages"? (i.e.,
bribes?). Bribes don't work. I'm sure you read Stuart's post
that began this thread. Eisenhower was able to stop the Korean
War with such a threat; but America was a much more confident
and psychologically strong nation in those days.
Of course, for most people on the list, it's probably not so clear
who was the aggressor nation in that case; was it the major threat
to world peace (i.e. the Americans) or the peace-loving Democratic
People's Republic of Korea? What really happened in June, 1950?
Probably some machinations by the CIA, eh? Perhaps we'll never know?
More information about the extropy-chat