[extropy-chat] private ownership of nuclear weapons

[Neil H.]

Excellent comments.

However, I'm still a little wary when it comes to private ownership of
nuclear weapons. You only mention defensive uses of nuclear weapons (which
could be quite useful), but there's bound to be at least a few people who
desire to use such weapons for ideological/offensive purposes. Since nuclear
weapons are so difficult to defend against, this could definitely be
problematic in the long term.

I've devoted some brain cycles in the past to trying to devise a sustainable
framework for private nuclear weapon ownership, but haven't been too
successful yet. In the case of "The Ungoverned," it's mentioned that if the
farmer's neighbors realized he had a nuke, they probably would've lynched
him immediately to protect themselves. What if all owners of nuclear weapons
are required to own insurance to cover potential damages? If the owner is
mentally unstable or they have weak safeguards for the nuke, insurance would
be prohibitively expensive or downright impossible to get.

Of course, there's then the problem of how to require insurance for
something in an anarcho-capitalist society. One way is if possession of an
uninsured nuclear weapon within blast range is considered to inherently be a
violation of the non-agression principle and grounds for the use of force.
There seems to be some ambiguity there though, so I'm not sure if I'm
satisfied with it yet.

On 12/18/05, Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:53 AM Neil H. neuronexmachina at gmail.com
> wrote:
> >> Nope.  You move to private militaries and then you can
> >> use technologies like nuclear weapons in self-defense.
> >> Your neighbors might have a huge army, but that will be
> >> a huge burden on them -- as militaries tend to be -- while
> >> your nuclear device keeps them from invading.
> >
> > Hehe...
> >
> > "He's not our customer!"
> > -- Wil W. Brierson, in Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned"
> >
> >
>
> http://everything2.com/?node=Briefest+apologia+for+the+use+of+nuclear+weapons+in+literature
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ungoverned
>
> Remember, that's a fictionalized account.  In the real world, I bet most
> nation states would not try to antagonize anyone armed with nukes, so
> having them is a good defense policy, especially given the bang for the
> buck when thinking about market anarchism.  In other word, it's much
> easier to hide and maintain a few nukes on standby than it is to
> maintain a big military ready to thwart would be invaders.  The nukes
> impose a very high cost for invasion -- a much higher cost than having
> countering forces.
>
> This is not to say that no one will ever invade a nuclear armed power or
> that there won't be ways of countering nukes, such as new technologies
> or having what John J. Mearsheimer calls "splendid first strike
> capability" (the ability to overwhelm a nuclear power with one's own
> nukes), but that nukes will handle many situations driving down the cost
> of defense because they drive up the cost of offense.  (See
> Mearsheimer's _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_.)
>
> Also, if my memory's correct, the New Mexicans (?) -- the evil invading
> nation in the story -- were unaware of the farmer with the nuke.  It
> would probably be a good defense policy to let would be hostiles know
> that you _might_ have a nuke.  That way, they'll think before invading.
> After all, the point of having one (or many) for defense is so that you
> don't have to use them -- as a deterrent.
>
> On this, see the typo ridden essay "Is the nuclear proliferation a
> blessing?" at:
>
> http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf
>
> And also _Basement Nukes_ by Erwin S. Strauss
>
> Regarding how nation states evaluate threats, especially when playing
> for keeps, see "The Credibility of Power: Assessing Threats During the
> 'Appeasement' Crises of the 1930s" (in _International Security_ 29(3)
> [Winter 2004/2005]) by Daryl G. Press and also his _Calculating
> Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats_.
>
> Also, as Samantha and I have argued, these free societies would have an
> economic and technological leg up over their neighbors with huge
> standing armies.  In fact, historically, it's usually been the
> economically more free societies that have one out despite usually
> having smaller armies.  (What usually happens is they become economic
> powerhouses and can raise better militaries than and otherwise
> outperform their opponents.)
>
> If you more talking about how a private security firm might decide not
> to defend a non-customer, well, that's true, but this is also true of
> nation states.  They can decide not to defend non-citizens or other
> nation states, as when Britain and France, despite their treaties, did
> not come to the rescue of Czechoslovakia during late 1930s and how the
> US sat back and let East Timor be gobbled up by Indonesia during the
> 1970s.  It's also true, though, that private firms could decide to band
> together -- just as nation states do.  This is not enough of an example
> to decide between the two systems.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
> http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/
>
> "... governments kill far more people than do terrorist groups.  From
> 1980 to 2000, international terrorists killed 7,745 people, according to
> the U.S. State Department.  Yet, in the same decades, governments killed
> more than 10 million people in ethnic-cleansing campaigns, mass
> executions, politically caused famines, wars, and other slaughters.  The
> 9/11 attacks made 2001 probably the only year in decades in which the
> number of people killed by international terrorists even approached 1
> percent of the number killed by governments. Governments pose a far
> greater threat to peace and survival than do terrorist groups." -- James
> Bovard at http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051218/fb9ed170/attachment.html>