

The Lesson from Libya: Get Nuclear Weapons - mryall
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003470.html

======
zdw
_U.S. government officials say it over and over again: we don't oppose
countries like Iraq, Libya and Iran having WMD because we're scared they're
going to attack us with them. Instead, we oppose them having WMD because that
would allow them to deter us from attacking them._

That sounds about right...

Makes you wonder if the world would be a more peaceful, but more dictatorial
and regimented place if everyone had nukes.

~~~
trevelyan
Kenneth Waltz has argued nuclear weapons spread peace. The strongest evidence
supporting him is the lack of any nuclear conflict in the last sixty years and
the way the weapons have brought peace between India and Pakistan. If he is
right the best prospects for long-term peace in the middle east will probably
come through a nuclear-armed Iran.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz>

That said, there are two core ironies in the politics of proliferation that
make this suggestion uncomfortable. The first is that at least at present the
most vehement opponents of nuclear proliferation are often the most vocal
critics of gun control. So few people who talk about the importance (or
insignificance) of deterrence really seem to believe it logically.

The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based models
of deterrence is not peace, but random violence. The reason for this is that a
certain amount of "demonstrated irrationality" is required to make the
prospect of mutual assured destruction convincing to all players. Which means
that if the world were truly rational we would expect some use of nuclear
devices. And yet we don't see any, or haven't seen any yet.

All of which leads us to the strange observation that nuclear proliferation
seems to bring peace, but not because of a rational deterrent effect.

~~~
mryall
> The second irony is that the Nash equilibrium for rational-actor based
> models of deterrence is not peace, but random violence.

Do you have a citation for that? I'd be interested to read further about it.

~~~
trevelyan
I think I got it from Robert Powell's stuff:

[http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php...](http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php?person=278)

------
knowtheory
This article is so terribly framed it hurts my brain, and my ability to
respond.

Even if nuclear and chemical weapons were a pretext to attack Saddam Hussein,
the reason the US attacked him was, ostensibly, because he was a threat
(defined as vaguely as possible).

The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat.

That Gaddafi was rehabilitated at the behest of international business
interests doesn't mean that he was any less of a murderous bastard or any less
of a social pariah.

In so far as the lesson is "if you're a douchebag (as defined by the UN) the
international community may try to pwn your ass", then, sure one might view
nuclear and chemical weapons as a deterrent against international attacks.

However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush
administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that
Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him
anyway.

In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against
attack by the US.

Also, please note that giving up nuclear and chemical weapons were never
promised as some sort of carte blanche get out of jail free card from the
international community. All international agreements are ultimately
contingent, the question is how much shit has to change between now and the
point where your agreement would fall apart that dictates how strong and
resilient your agreement is. Gaddafi's no chump, he knows nobody likes him, or
he wouldn't be such a paranoid mofo.

Likewise, Iran and North Korea know how distrusted they are by NATO nations.

North Korea is a particular instructive example, as they _did_ go through a
period of disarmament and verification, only to renege on their agreements.
They got what they wanted from the international community, and after their
incentives changed (presumably things weren't _as_ dire as they were before),
they told everyone to go fuck themselves.

~~~
trustfundbaby
Your argument is poorly put together sir.

> the reason the US attacked him was (Hussein), ostensibly, because he was a
> threat (defined as vaguely as possible)

> The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat

\----

So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked ... he is so much of a 'threat'
(defined as vaguely as possible) that he makes surrounding Arab states nervous
... (see wikileaks for reference)

> However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush
> administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that
> Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him
> anyway.

\---

Yep ... but he didn't have nuclear weapons did he?

>In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against
attack by the US.

\-----

I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons

The central point of the article is pretty solid ... if you have nuclear
weapons or even look like you have them, America isn't coming after you.

The part about them getting you to disarm so they can attack you is a bit of a
stretch though.

~~~
knowtheory
> So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked?

Because we're already involved in two land wars in the middle east and asia?

Because Iran has at least tepid Russian support? Because Iran has a large
enough army and national spirit that a war in Iran would be extraordinarily
costly and long ranging?

The proclivity for removing repressive regimes does not _guarantee_ that the
international community will attack, just as the renunciation of nuclear
weapons isn't a guarantee that a repressive regime will _not_ be attacked.
That's why i'm so skeptical of all of these moral hazard arguments on the
international stage. International politics are really complicated, and there
are a lot of factors involved in decision making.

> I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons

Well caught, but i still think i disagree. It's true that the US hasn't ever
attacked or declared war on a nuclear state (well, i'm not sure what the
engagement between N and S Korea last year should be called), so we're in
hypothetical territory on that subject. But one could equally ask why we
haven't attacked Myanmar in spite of their horrendous human rights record, and
the answer is simply that China is their sponsor. It's not because of their
lack of nuclear arms.

------
harshpotatoes
The article focuses on Libya and Iraq, but forgets about Pakistan, whose
nuclear weapons have done little to prevent CIA drones from killing terrorists
and the occaisional civillian within pakistan's borders.

~~~
blasdel
Why would the people in charge in Pakistan want to do that? We're funneling
them billions of dollars in aid money, they're a client state of the US.

Aid was cut off briefly over 30 years ago when their nuclear program became
public, but started right back up again so they could back the Taliban against
the Soviets for us.

------
bluekeybox
For any projection of power, however well grounded, there will always be a
seemingly well-reasoned rebuttal of its legitimacy.

There are a lot of people out there who want to stick it to the U.S. just for
playing a power game regardless of grounds for said power game. These people
will always find a way to make the power game look bad, since by its very
nature power is susceptible to such criticism. At this point, I am just
starting to ignore these people because I have learned that the number one
reason people criticize someone exercising power is because they want the
power exclusively for themselves.

Power is neither good nor bad; power is power. What should be criticized is
brutality.

------
dublinclontarf
No, the lesson is if there is a revolution in your country, dont try to wipe
it out with brute force. At least be mkre sneaky about it.

~~~
trustfundbaby
... if you have oil

~~~
tzs
Nonsense. From an oil point of view, the US is better off if the dictator
wins.

------
jmspring
The bulk of US Foreign policy can be summed up in --
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigger%20Dick%20Forgien%20Policy)

------
lionhearted
99% of the time, not watching the news is awesome. Most of it is noise that
obscures what's actually happening - you do much better by studying history
than watching the news. For instance, you'd do well to study the history of
financial crises during one, instead of watching the news. The news say that
armageddon is coming, whereas history says buy stocks after the crash.

Though occasionally, you do get bushwhacked - the thought process goes like
this: "WTF? My country is bombing Libya? _google... google..._ Huh, my country
is bombing Libya."

Analysis - I think the article makes some good points, but the conclusion is
overly simplistic.

In terms of securing their current government, a regime hostile to the USA
needs to look at a few factors, such as:

1\. Are they on the US leadership's radar already?

2\. Does US leadership believe the USA has enough resources to to make war on
them without excessively compromising the economy or military capability
elsewhere?

3\. Could further arming provide a casus belli for an administration that
already wants to make war?

4\. What's the US leadership's current geopolitical strategy for the area?

North Korea is interesting because they have the fourth largest military in
the world, and they've got ballistic missiles pointed at two of America's
closest allies in Asia - Japan and South Korea. A coalition could absolutely
defeat North Korea, but at _huge_ potential costs, nuclear weapons aside. So
in their case, yes, arming with nuclear weapons probably helps their security,
especially while America is already in two deep military conflicts.

 _(Note: I'm being descriptive here, not proscriptive. Obviously I think North
Korea having nuclear weapons is a bad thing)_

On the flipside a lot of petty regimes like Cuba and Venezuela are mildly
hostile to the USA but not on American leadership's radar as a threat and the
American people would be against a war with them. In their case, arming with
nuclear weapons would be a very dangerous gamble - they're basically safe from
any U.S. offensive action at this point, but you'd be provoking a still very
fierce tiger if you tried to get nuclear arms. Especially Cuba - I think
American discovery of nuclear armament in Cuba would result in a near instant
invasion.

The regimes and governments with the most interesting questions to ask
themselves are the ones that are loosely aligned with the USA right now, but
stand a very good chance of having hostile relations later. My gut reaction is
that places like Saudi Arabian and Pakistan become more domestically secure
against American action with nuclear weapons, but arming is risky - if
American intelligence, leadership, or media happened to discover some blatant
financing or backing of terrorism or insurgency around the same time the
nuclear program was discovered, they might find themselves occupied. They're
already next door to regions we're at war, so it doesn't even open another
front and the key supply chains are already in place... U.S. leadership might
decide they'd prefer to install more explicitly friendly leadership in those
places if they tried to arm up.

In regards to Iran, I think it's point #4 - "What's the US leadership's
current geopolitical strategy for the area?" My take is that the American
leadership really wants the Iranian leadership out, but they think it's going
to happen organically pretty soon and don't want to give the regime an
external enemy to fight for unity's sake. Though, I think some of the more
public war-dogging Iran was doing during Bush's administration was crazy -
that administration seemed to really want to attack Iran, especially if
operations had gone more smoothly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~~~
coob
You seem to be forgetting that US is not the only country enforcing the no-fly
zone. This is about more than the US.

