[ExI] The Nuclear Huns

[Lee Corbin]

Stefano writes

>>> 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.
> 
> Let me say that I am sympathetic with the position of an American
> proud to be one

Actually, no. I've never been proud of any such thing. I have
never even been proud of being white  :-)   Why? Because those
things were accidents of birth. (I sheepishly confess to being 
proud, a bit, of living in Silicon Valley---but then, I studied 
computers and moved here.)

> and without qualms in furthering what he perceives as
> the interests of his own country and community and people, perhaps
> along to that of countries that he perceives as allies or cultural and
> political cousins.

Oh, yes, indeed I do think that if, say, France and Germany have to
undergo a financial meltdown or else the U.S., I'll prefer the former.
But I would never *argue* that from a biased perspective.
One must put forth objective reasons in a forum such as this.

(The most I might try to argue would be some problematic notion like,
maybe with America's larger economy, it would be better if it had
been France and Germany hurting rather than the U.S.)
 
> What I offered before is an exercise in perspective. It is by no means
> necessary that what corresponds to the best interest of the US of A,
> or supposedly of the "West", automatically corresponds to that of the
> governments of the rest of the world, or even the peoples of the rest
> of the world.

Right. I don't disagree with that at all. I merely think that what is
good for General Motors is good for the U.S.  Er, oops, I meant,
what is good for the West is good for the world.

> The USA themselves played chicken with success with the
> URSS [U.S.S.R.] during the Cuban crisis. And of course,
> the ability to make the Russians seriously believe that its
> leadership would have been crazy enough to unleash a nuclear
> apocalypse  to protect its political interest and long-term
> independence was key in that success (in fact, Rees goes as
> far as maintaining that in hindsight it was a very crazy stunt,
> which cannot be retrospectively justified only because of its
> positive outcome, on the tune of "better red than dead").

Well, the U.S. was going to blockade Cuba, and maybe invade
it. That is not exactly correctly described as "unleashing a nuclear
apocalypse". Yes---it is risky, because one thing can lead to
another. But to never be assertive is to risk being taken advantage
of at every turn. (Precisely the same principles apply in daily life.)
Wouldn't it have been the U.S.S.R. that would have had to 
"unleash" a nuclear war to stop the blockade or to stop an
invasion of Cuba? [2]

> Now, North Korea is a poor, desperate, politically marginalised
> country. This may or may not be the responsibility of its leadership,
> of the fate, or of evil capitalism, but at the end of the day this is
> the reality. Realising that threatening to develop nuclear weapons,
> rather than worsening its situation as the common wisdom would
> go, was a way to play at best whatever weak cards it had was
> brilliant, IMHO.

I agree that it was brilliant. It was also brilliant to receive all that
aid from the Clinton administration, and then renege on its
promises. And brilliant to accept all the free rice from the U.S.
and then betray that promise too.

But the fundamental reason that this was very smart for the North
Koreans to do is that they correctly perceived the weakness of
the West, and its lack of resolve.

(Strangely, I find you somewhat eager to ascribe selfish motives to
the U.S., even when I believe I'm arguing from a world perspective,
and yet not hold North Korea to the same standard. Or is it just 
"to be expected" in their case, but not in the case of the U.S., 
because the U.S. is open to criticism, and the criticism may be
effective?)

> Even if they really accepted a bribe and were honest in honouring a
> commitment not to develop them in the future, they still would make
> more out of it than by declaring bankruptcy and throwing themselves to
> the mercy of the international community.

You are saying that their situation is *so* desperate financially that
they must turn to extortion? No! They should reform their government
instead, and set up a sound market economy.[1]  What would you say if the
U.S. did the same thing concerning its own financial meltdown? Turn to
extorting money out of other countries to stave off the possibility of
financial collapse?  In *that* case, instead of saying it was "brilliant",
I imagine you'd be somewhat critical.

Lee

[1] One way to fix their situation would be to declare war on
Japan or the U.S., and then quickly surrender. If they did this,
(following the plot of "The Mouse That Roared"), especially
against the U.S., they'd soon be as well off as South Korea
or Japan. 

[2] Once again I get the feeling that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
are being held to different standards. Perhaps you think of the
USSR as a mad dog not responsible for its actions, whereas
think the US more like a thoughtful and judicious individual.
We know that the mad dog is not going to change its behavior,
so if a deadly conflict arises between it and a human being,
we generally blame the human for having done something
stupid, like failing to take adequate precautions.