Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

[eion]

If Iraq invaded Turkey all of the other NATO members would be forced to respond. What happens if someone detonates a nuclear device in a NATO member country? What if it was detonated by a terrorist group with ties to a government?

I'm not seeing how that would be a global war- especially since we essentially had a scenario like that for the past 9 years.

A government affiliated terrorist group detonated a nuclear device in a NATO country in the last nine years? Oh, you meant 9-11! Because I'm sure if Al-Queada had detonated a couple kiloton device in Manhattan and another outside the Pentagon it would only have killed 3,000 people too.

Unfounded beliefs in the disparity in the number of bombers and missiles existed at different times during the Cold War. If either side had had perfect information, nuclear chess would play a lot more like normal chess than it did.

The beliefs of the politicans are not the same as the beliefs of the military. I'm pretty sure the unfounded beliefs and "bomber gap" were manufactured by the opposition party to make the incumbants look bad.

Actually both were funding tactics by the USAF. If there was even the perception of a gap in nuclear capability between the US and USSR, public pressure would ensure the USAF got more funding to close the gap. Of course that leads to an actual gap on the Soviet side, which forces them to build more nuclear weapons, which forces the U.S. to respond by building more, and all that works out splendidly for the military’s political power on both sides.

Yes, humanity would suddenly desist from fighting a major war because... what? They learned their lesson? It took 21 years from the first to the second. Why is it not reasonable to assume the change in behavior is due to a change in the situation?

I’m sorry, I actually have no idea what you just said. Could you rephrase it please?

[Broomstick]

And given that this is the second time globalization has resulted in fiscal fuck up I sort of question if we should ever try it again, you know? Because WWI and WWII were so much fucking fun!

Yeah, autarky worked so well for Romania and North Korea didn't it? I mean, really, what is the worst that could happen if we stopped trading and investing in the third world- aside from their economies collapsing of course.

So, if we don't want one extreme we must go to another? How about a happy medium? Some connection to the rest of the world, some self-sufficiency?

Of course that's less efficient by some measures, but we need to stop just looking at the short-term bottom line. There's a long-neglected place for long term planning and protective redundancy.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, if someone lets loose a smallpox strain 90% lethal... well, that could potentially kill many more people than a few nukes. That might justify a nuclear response.

If a nuclear response would be at all helpful as a way to deter that kind of thing from happening... See, ideally you'd want to make sure no one even develops something like that. Because it would have to be done on purpose, and the facilities to do it aren't at all cheap.

So there's at least a quasi-sane argument along the lines of "If a major global pandemic is caused by a bioweapon and we have strong evidence that you invented it, we will nuke you, even if it was stolen." Because you're not just trying to deter people from actually releasing advanced bioweapons. You don't want them to be invented at all, and you want anyone who does try to invent them to make damn sure they can't be stolen by private actors.

Ah, yes, lovely thought, that - if the Norks nuke Tokyo by treaty the US is obligated to go to war on their behalf. Our own damn fault, really, making them agree to that after we demanded their abject and total surrender. (Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time).

Dunno. It's helped East Asia from the Chinese border north fifty years of relative peace, because the Japanese feel secure enough not to build up a major military, which makes everyone around them feel more secure in turn. The Chinese would have invested far more heavily in power projection, for example, if they were seriously worried about Japan jumping them. And they would be worried (rightly) if the Japanese had a major offensive military of their own.

[Samuel]

So, if we don't want one extreme we must go to another? How about a happy medium? Some connection to the rest of the world, some self-sufficiency?

Why is self sufficiency such an important goal that it outweighs efficiency?

Of course that's less efficient by some measures, but we need to stop just looking at the short-term bottom line. There's a long-neglected place for long term planning and protective redundancy.

"Less efficient" means slower growth for the third world and more people in poverty. Unless you want to reduce trade with Europe in which case they are wealthy enough to also focus on self sufficiency as well. There is a difference from "we should focus on the long term" and "we should reduce foreign trade... because". Globalization simply means that trade and investment between different countries is easier and occurs at an increased rate.

[Broomstick]

On the other hand, if someone lets loose a smallpox strain 90% lethal... well, that could potentially kill many more people than a few nukes. That might justify a nuclear response.

If a nuclear response would be at all helpful as a way to deter that kind of thing from happening... See, ideally you'd want to make sure no one even develops something like that. Because it would have to be done on purpose, and the facilities to do it aren't at all cheap.

It actually already has been developed - thank you, Soviet Union. The highly lethal strain may still be in the the stock of smallpox samples over there. Personally, I wish some attention would be paid to eliminating such things which are really quite as horrific as nuclear weapons. At least it's never been deployed.

Ah, yes, lovely thought, that - if the Norks nuke Tokyo by treaty the US is obligated to go to war on their behalf. Our own damn fault, really, making them agree to that after we demanded their abject and total surrender. (Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time).

Dunno. It's helped East Asia from the Chinese border north fifty years of relative peace, because the Japanese feel secure enough not to build up a major military, which makes everyone around them feel more secure in turn. The Chinese would have invested far more heavily in power projection, for example, if they were seriously worried about Japan jumping them. And they would be worried (rightly) if the Japanese had a major offensive military of their own.[/quote]
Oh, certainly, is was the right thing to force on the Japanese, but continuing that state of affairs into the future may not be the best thing to do. Wouldn't hurt to revisit the matter from time to time.

It certainly becomes problematic if North Korea - China's vassal state - starts a war that drags two superpowers into the fray, and potentially into direct conflict. I can't help but think, even if the fighting is restricted in area, that war between the North Korean and China on the one side, and Japan, the US, and South Korea on the other would not be a good thing for the rest of the world, either.

Which is not to say such a thing is inevitable. I don't think China wants to go to war with the US or Japan, either. If the Norks start something China might just let them twist in the wind, if that's what the Chinese deem to be in their best interest.

[Broomstick]

So, if we don't want one extreme we must go to another? How about a happy medium? Some connection to the rest of the world, some self-sufficiency?

Why is self sufficiency such an important goal that it outweighs efficiency?

Ultimate efficiency might well dictate that a country stop growing any of its food and import all that it eats - but from a strategic viewpoint that's fucking stupid. Do I really need to explain to you the hazards of depending too much on other countries for vital resources and industries?

Here's another example: Widget Q is used by all nations and is vital to the modern lifestyle. For the sake of efficiency (and low production costs) widget Q is made in one factory in one country. One day, said country is hit by a devastating earthquake, which destroys said factory. NOW where does everyone get widget Q?

Because the world is an unpredictable and at times hostile place it is foolish to do something of that sort. Certain vital industries should be not consolidated but distributed to guard against disasters (natural or man-made) from wiping them out, even if that is less efficient than consolidation.

Of course that's less efficient by some measures, but we need to stop just looking at the short-term bottom line. There's a long-neglected place for long term planning and protective redundancy.

"Less efficient" means slower growth for the third world and more people in poverty. Unless you want to reduce trade with Europe in which case they are wealthy enough to also focus on self sufficiency as well. There is a difference from "we should focus on the long term" and "we should reduce foreign trade... because". Globalization simply means that trade and investment between different countries is easier and occurs at an increased rate.

Growth in the third world does not always benefit the poor, just as economic gains from the 1990s through 2005 didn't benefit the average American, either. Part of corporate/industrial efficiency is driving down wages as low as possible, which doesn't help the average worker at all. A rising tide does not lift all boats, at least not automatically.

Clearly, what each country should do, or is able to do, varies because not all countries start from the same point. However, the current economic bullshit I think illustrates that the US was fucking stupid to export so much manufacturing off shore so that when the "service" sector of the economy collapsed there was nothing to fall back on. You'd think we would have learned from prior industrial collapses, like the auto industry in Michigan, which plunged a state into recession/depression even when the rest of the country was booming. A diversified economy is protection against future calamity.

[adam_grif]

I don't think China wants to go to war with the US or Japan, either.

To say the least. I don't think any party involved really wants to have their country turned into a pile of radioactive ash. Even if it doesn't escalate to nuclear weapons straight off the bat, nobody is going to come out of it looking pretty, and nobody can really push too far into anybody else's territory before the missiles start flying.

As far as I can tell, the only time two nuclear powers have actually had a shooting war was between India and Pakistan, and it didn't last very long before they negotiated peace to prevent things from getting out of hand. Pakistan had only just got it's nukes at this stage. Neither is really a nuclear heavyweight, of course.

[Sarevok]

Indeed. And there has not been a war between India and Pakistan despite plenty of provocations for last ten years. Its not Pakistans conventional military that is keeping Indians from attacking thats for sure.

[Medic]

If on the one hand, the POTUS said this but on the other was funding a new, heavy strike platform, it'd be less worrisome. I believe in sheer vollume of JDAM's, we can rely on conventional overkill as deterrence; there's enough bomb's to gut a target country's electrical, industrial and transportation center's, which together with sanctions, can make these regime's lives miserable.

This isn't an ideal crutch though: thanks to the makeup of our naval and air assets, we're essentially reliant on the strikefighter / UAV swarm. B-52's are just too slow and unstealthy to be reliably relevant in every conflict. The B-1 fleet ... might be in the future as well as it's not nearly as stealthy as the newest stealth platforms. The B-2 fleet is just plain anemic. Provided we get the basing rights and we don't ever run into an enemy capable of targeting our aerial refueler fleet, a hail of JDAM's probably is deterrent enough, for anyone that can do the math but it's not a great feeling to have to rely on this. Yes, there is always the cruise missile swarm but that's not cheap.

I'm betting by the next QDR, the '2018 bomber' mentioned in Bush's last QDR in 2006 will be killed off, too. At the moment I believe it's been postponed which is as good as dead in Gates' DoD and Obama's presidency.

[Samuel]

Ultimate efficiency might well dictate that a country stop growing any of its food and import all that it eats - but from a strategic viewpoint that's fucking stupid.

If it can't growth enough to feed its own population anyway, it isn't. I hardly think Japan stopping the subsidy of its rice farmers would be stupid- sure it would no longer make its own food, but when they provide less than 10% of your supply anyways, it doesn't matter.

Because the world is an unpredictable and at times hostile place it is foolish to do something of that sort. Certain vital industries should be not consolidated but distributed to guard against disasters (natural or man-made) from wiping them out, even if that is less efficient than consolidation.

Than why put them in the US? The Canadian shield is a great place- no floods, no quakes, no tornados. If the variation in temperature is a problem, put it in Brazil at the equator.

More seriously, companies that outsource tend to do so to multiple different countries or areas. It helps keep the costs down by making sure that the local governments don't squeeze to much. Is there actually an instance where a vital resource is produced in only one location that is threatened by natural or man-made disasters?

Growth in the third world does not always benefit the poor, just as economic gains from the 1990s through 2005 didn't benefit the average American, either.

Yes, but slower growth does hurt the poor.

A diversified economy is protection against future calamity.

There are easier methods to do this than going for protectionism. Off the top of my head, make the costs of transport across the ocean higher by driving up the costs of oil and port usage while at the same time reducing internal shipping costs.

[Broomstick]

Ultimate efficiency might well dictate that a country stop growing any of its food and import all that it eats - but from a strategic viewpoint that's fucking stupid.

If it can't growth enough to feed its own population anyway, it isn't. I hardly think Japan stopping the subsidy of its rice farmers would be stupid- sure it would no longer make its own food, but when they provide less than 10% of your supply anyways, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter how such dependence comes about, it's a bad vulnerability. The fact there ARE countries in such circumstances only demonstrates just how fucked up the world is right now. And what a house of cards it is.

In any case, I'm arguing the exact OPPOSITE of Japan stopping it's native rice subsidy. There was a time Japan was self-sufficient in food. If it's not... well, I don't care how prosperous they are, they're taking a big chance on their future.

Because the world is an unpredictable and at times hostile place it is foolish to do something of that sort. Certain vital industries should be not consolidated but distributed to guard against disasters (natural or man-made) from wiping them out, even if that is less efficient than consolidation.

Than why put them in the US? The Canadian shield is a great place- no floods, no quakes, no tornados. If the variation in temperature is a problem, put it in Brazil at the equator.

Are you stupid or something? Are you seriously arguing that the US should gut its industry even more and put it ALL outside the country? Are you paying attention to what I"m saying at all? Because that's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said any country should do. Some overseas production? Not a bad idea. But putting ALL your production outside your borders is fucking stupid. "Self-reliance" does NOT mean storing your assets and valuables in your neighbor's house. The US is large enough geographically that no one disaster is going to wipe it out. Except, perhaps, Yellowstone blowing up big time, but then the whole world will be screwed and folks will get a very harsh lesson on why too much dependence on things outside your own local area is a bad idea.

And before you slam to the opposite extreme - no, I do NOT mean isolating oneself from the rest of the world, either! I'm looking for a happy medium, middle of the road approach - you want some interaction with others, but not at the cost of making yourself utterly and completely reliant on the good behavior of the rest of the world.

More seriously, companies that outsource tend to do so to multiple different countries or areas. It helps keep the costs down by making sure that the local governments don't squeeze to much.

In other words - it's a way of bullying local governments from taxing corporations to support the local infrastructure and society, and increasing workers wages to a level above poverty, by threatening to take the jobs elsewhere and leave the workers with nothing. Increase profits, but god forbid you increase wages.

Growth in the third world does not always benefit the poor, just as economic gains from the 1990s through 2005 didn't benefit the average American, either.

Yes, but slower growth does hurt the poor.

Oh, please - the poor got NOTHING from increased prosperity through the 1990's to now. NOTHING. There is NO incentive for corporations to increase wages - indeed, there is much incentive to leave for places with even cheaper labor, cutting wages to ZERO in the places they just vacated. Fact is, the way the world is right now the incentive is for corporations to find any way possible to DEPRESS wages for the poor. The poor in the third world get nothing but hurt - wages just enough to keep them alive (maybe), no health care, no retirement, and all too frequently a legacy of toxic waste from corporations that just don't give a damn about polluting land, water, and air.

A diversified economy is protection against future calamity.

There are easier methods to do this than going for protectionism. Off the top of my head, make the costs of transport across the ocean higher by driving up the costs of oil and port usage while at the same time reducing internal shipping costs.

WHERE did I say "protectionism"? You're leaping to conclusions. What you suggest is entirely acceptable to me. It's not the only way. Use your imagination instead of just assuming I'm proposing past failures.

[Samuel]

In any case, I'm arguing the exact OPPOSITE of Japan stopping it's native rice subsidy. There was a time Japan was self-sufficient in food. If it's not... well, I don't care how prosperous they are, they're taking a big chance on their future.

They don't have enough arable land to feed everyone! Is this so hard to get- it isn't possible for everyone to be entirely self-sufficient.

Are you seriously arguing that the US should gut its industry even more and put it ALL outside the country?

Because the world is an unpredictable and at times hostile place it is foolish to do something of that sort. Certain vital industries should be not consolidated but distributed to guard against disasters (natural or man-made) from wiping them out, even if that is less efficient than consolidation.

Canada is less prone to natural or man made disasters. Of course if you goal is blatant protectionism than you would automatically reject what I suggested... which you just did.

But putting ALL your production outside your borders is fucking stupid.

Unless your neighbors are more stable than you or less prone to disaster. In which case it would be better than having them in your nation according to your premises.

I'm looking for a happy medium, middle of the road approach - you want some interaction with others, but not at the cost of making yourself utterly and completely reliant on the good behavior of the rest of the world.

That is vague enough to be meaningless. You want "vital industries" in the US. Does that only mean heavy industries like steel making or does it also include good industries if they are considered essential to the American way of Life like cars?

Oh, please - the poor got NOTHING from increased prosperity through the 1990's to now.

I was refering to the 3rd world, not the United States.

The poor in the third world get nothing but hurt - wages just enough to keep them alive (maybe), no health care, no retirement, and all too frequently a legacy of toxic waste from corporations that just don't give a damn about polluting land, water, and air.

If previous conditions weren't worse, they wouldn't take the jobs.

WHERE did I say "protectionism"? You're leaping to conclusions.

Protectionism is the simplest way to achieve what you are advocating. Unless you mean nationalizing industries? Unlimited immigration to drive down wages for unskilled labor?

[Broomstick]

In any case, I'm arguing the exact OPPOSITE of Japan stopping it's native rice subsidy. There was a time Japan was self-sufficient in food. If it's not... well, I don't care how prosperous they are, they're taking a big chance on their future.

They don't have enough arable land to feed everyone! Is this so hard to get- it isn't possible for everyone to be entirely self-sufficient.

Yes. They were foolish enough to overpopulate their islands. They have compensated for it brilliantly, nonetheless, they are in the position of being utterly dependent on outside nations in order to feed their own people. I still say that's a stupid and vulnerable position to be in. The best long term solution to this is, of course, to reduce the population to a level where their islands CAN be self-sufficient in food once more. Would be best if everyone did that. Short of a horrific, global catastrophe, however, it will take generations at best to solve that problem.

Are you seriously arguing that the US should gut its industry even more and put it ALL outside the country?

Because the world is an unpredictable and at times hostile place it is foolish to do something of that sort. Certain vital industries should be not consolidated but distributed to guard against disasters (natural or man-made) from wiping them out, even if that is less efficient than consolidation.

Canada is less prone to natural or man made disasters. Of course if you goal is blatant protectionism than you would automatically reject what I suggested... which you just did.

Please do not put words in my mouth or distort my argument into your preconceptions. Transferring everyone's industry to the Canadian shield might benefit Canadians, but everyone everywhere else would be out of work and starving. Why do you insist on positions so extreme the solutions are as bad, if not worse, than the problems?

But putting ALL your production outside your borders is fucking stupid.

Unless your neighbors are more stable than you or less prone to disaster. In which case it would be better than having them in your nation according to your premises.

No, you fucking moron - putting all your industry outside your borders means your average citizen has no work and starves. You are looking SOLELY at the bottom line, as all too many people do these days, and completely forgetting that there are live human beings out there who need to work and earn a living. It's not just a matter of resources management, it's also a matter of not reducing the majority of the population to utter ruin. Unless, of course, you're one of the few elite who own the means of production and thus do not have to give a flying fuck about the miserable living conditions of those around you.

I'm looking for a happy medium, middle of the road approach - you want some interaction with others, but not at the cost of making yourself utterly and completely reliant on the good behavior of the rest of the world.

That is vague enough to be meaningless. You want "vital industries" in the US. Does that only mean heavy industries like steel making or does it also include good industries if they are considered essential to the American way of Life like cars?

You insist on extremism, why I do not know.

Nor am I limiting this discussion SOLELY to the US - but obviously you haven't noticed that, either. A particular country does not have to produce ALL the steel it uses, but it should have a steel industry so that if something happens to those people overseas they don't lose ALL their access to steel products. If all the world cedes steel making to, say, the Chinese because it's cheaper and dismantles all the steel industry outside China then there are two serious problems. 1) China can then jack up prices as much as they want with a captive market and 2) if something happens to fuck up China the rest of the world is fucked, too. Yet more and more steel production is Chinese and nowhere else. This is global stupidity. Worse yet, it comes from capitalists who SHOULD know the value of some healthy competition.

Let's look at aviation - if it wasn't for Airbus Boeing would more or less hold a monopoly on the large passenger and cargo aircraft. This would not be good in the long term for anyone. Lack competition would lead to complacency in Boeing. Everyone else would be dependent on just one company for an important industry. So I am entirely in approval of there being Airbus, even if its existence is dependent on government subsidy, because it adds competition and keeps nations from being utterly dependent on one source for one thing.

Auto industry? No, America does not have to have an auto industry - but it SHOULD have manufacturing industry of some sort. That has been gutted over the past two decades. All our money pours out of the country for manufactured goods, but what in this country makes the wealth that enables people to buy stuff? Pushing paper and data around? Yeah, that's working real good for us right now. We no longer have a diversified economy. We are repeating the "rewards" of that stupid choice to gut large sectors of our economy in the name of saving a few pennies while ignoring the long-term consequences of that.

Oh, please - the poor got NOTHING from increased prosperity through the 1990's to now.

I was refering to the 3rd world, not the United States.

So was I. WHERE in my references to the poor did I specify "The United States?" Nowhere. YOU read that into what I posted. You aren't reading what I write, you're reading what you want to believe.

The poor in the third world get nothing but hurt - wages just enough to keep them alive (maybe), no health care, no retirement, and all too frequently a legacy of toxic waste from corporations that just don't give a damn about polluting land, water, and air.

If previous conditions weren't worse, they wouldn't take the jobs.

A choice between starvation and exploitation is hardly a choice at all. The fact people might otherwise starve to death does not make it OK to arrange things such that they will exist in dire poverty for generations, all for the wealth of people in other places.

WHERE did I say "protectionism"? You're leaping to conclusions.

Protectionism is the simplest way to achieve what you are advocating. Unless you mean nationalizing industries? Unlimited immigration to drive down wages for unskilled labor?

WHERE did I say I sought the simplest solution? Nowhere. Again, you are not reading what I'm writing. Nationalizing industries? I'd consider it AFTER an examination of alternatives and consequences. Plenty of other countries have nationalized industries so there is some knowledge to draw on in making these decision if people will look at it dispassionately without dragging in extremist bullshit and political/economic bias. And FUCK NO I am NOT advocating driving down wages for unskilled labor! That is part of the global problem! What the fuck is wrong with you, that you think it's OK to drive DOWN the wages of the poor? We need to RAISE their wages so they will buy more (the poor almost immediately will spend any increase in wealth, which benefits the economy) and live better. That doesn't mean making them millionaires, just making their lives a little better. Or do you advocate squalor for a large swath of humanity in order to keep the wealthy wealthy?

[Simon_Jester]

It actually already has been developed - thank you, Soviet Union. The highly lethal strain may still be in the the stock of smallpox samples over there. Personally, I wish some attention would be paid to eliminating such things which are really quite as horrific as nuclear weapons. At least it's never been deployed.

If you can't stop them from developing it, your next line of defense is to make deploying it suicide, and make allowing it to be deployed suicide, even if you can say "but it was stolen!" Well, you shouldn't have kept something that could potentially kill five billion people somewhere a random lunatic could steal it, now should you?

It seems to be working for nuclear weapons; it's better than nothing for bioweapons.

It certainly becomes problematic if North Korea - China's vassal state - starts a war that drags two superpowers into the fray, and potentially into direct conflict. I can't help but think, even if the fighting is restricted in area, that war between the North Korean and China on the one side, and Japan, the US, and South Korea on the other would not be a good thing for the rest of the world, either.

I don't think your assessment of the China-NK relationship is quite right. The Chinese don't seem to have all that much direct control over North Korean actions, and I very, very much doubt they'd even consider backing North Korea in a nuclear war.

Yes. They were foolish enough to overpopulate their islands. They have compensated for it brilliantly, nonetheless, they are in the position of being utterly dependent on outside nations in order to feed their own people. I still say that's a stupid and vulnerable position to be in. The best long term solution to this is, of course, to reduce the population to a level where their islands CAN be self-sufficient in food once more. Would be best if everyone did that. Short of a horrific, global catastrophe, however, it will take generations at best to solve that problem.

The problem with this is that if we try to apply it consistently we do wind up with isolationist autarky. I mean, assume the region "Japan" produces enough food to feed itself. Does the region "Hokkaido?" What about "the west half of Hokkaido?" What about a particular mining town in western Hokkaido?

There has to be a limit, a point at which we say "making this region self-sufficient costs us so much of the region's economic potential to do other things that it isn't worth it." A copper mine isn't going to grow its own food; a mining district may not either.

And YES, I think you believe this. I'm not actually trying to negate your argument; I'm just trying to set a lower bound on how far it can be taken.

[Broomstick]

It actually already has been developed - thank you, Soviet Union. The highly lethal strain may still be in the the stock of smallpox samples over there. Personally, I wish some attention would be paid to eliminating such things which are really quite as horrific as nuclear weapons. At least it's never been deployed.

If you can't stop them from developing it, your next line of defense is to make deploying it suicide, and make allowing it to be deployed suicide, even if you can say "but it was stolen!" Well, you shouldn't have kept something that could potentially kill five billion people somewhere a random lunatic could steal it, now should you?

It seems to be working for nuclear weapons; it's better than nothing for bioweapons.

To the credit of the Soviets (and, since I presume they now have custody, the Russians) they do keep it out of the hands of random nutjobs.

I understand the principle of mutual assured destruction. I think it does work most of the time (people who aren't afraid to die, who in fact believe they will be rewarded for dying in their cause may not be deterred). That doesn't mean we should have kneejerk responses or that we shouldn't review/modify our policies as conditions change, or that weapons should be continually produced/stockpiled past a certain point.

I don't think your assessment of the China-NK relationship is quite right. The Chinese don't seem to have all that much direct control over North Korean actions, and I very, very much doubt they'd even consider backing North Korea in a nuclear war.

Yes, I could be wrong on the matter - none of us are privy to all the facts. I would prefer to think China would leave NK to twist in the wind if they started a nuclear war, but they might not.

Yes. They were foolish enough to overpopulate their islands. They have compensated for it brilliantly, nonetheless, they are in the position of being utterly dependent on outside nations in order to feed their own people. I still say that's a stupid and vulnerable position to be in. The best long term solution to this is, of course, to reduce the population to a level where their islands CAN be self-sufficient in food once more. Would be best if everyone did that. Short of a horrific, global catastrophe, however, it will take generations at best to solve that problem.

The problem with this is that if we try to apply it consistently we do wind up with isolationist autarky. I mean, assume the region "Japan" produces enough food to feed itself. Does the region "Hokkaido?" What about "the west half of Hokkaido?" What about a particular mining town in western Hokkaido?

There has to be a limit, a point at which we say "making this region self-sufficient costs us so much of the region's economic potential to do other things that it isn't worth it." A copper mine isn't going to grow its own food; a mining district may not either.

And YES, I think you believe this. I'm not actually trying to negate your argument; I'm just trying to set a lower bound on how far it can be taken.

That's why I say you have to avoid extremes in either direction. No, not every square meter of land will be entirely independent of any other. However, being at least potentially self-sufficient foodwise on the level of nations while continuing to import luxury foods (some of which may not be that luxurious, just simply not growable in a given climate) is a wise, long term choice. Some nations, such a Singapore or Luxembourg, may simply be unable to do this due to their small geographic size. They will, of necessity, be more dependent upon others, but they would still be wisest to diversity their economies as much as possible.

At present, the drive towards "efficiency" seems to be towards highly tuned, highly optimized single sources. In a perfect world that might be a good choice, but as I keep saying, the world isn't safe. Redundancy provides some buffer against chance misfortune, but redundancy isn't "efficient" - until you need it.

[Samuel]

A government affiliated terrorist group detonated a nuclear device in a NATO country in the last nine years? Oh, you meant 9-11! Because I'm sure if Al-Queada had detonated a couple kiloton device in Manhattan and another outside the Pentagon it would only have killed 3,000 people too.

Fuck you. You asked if it would drag them into a war and I gave a lesser example which did.

I’m sorry, I actually have no idea what you just said. Could you rephrase it please?

I'm saying that since the change in the situation was the introduction of nuclear weapons, they are probably responsible for the lack of a global war.

Yes. They were foolish enough to overpopulate their islands.

Are you saying that nations should not have a larger population than it can feed? That there should be no trade in food?

I still say that's a stupid and vulnerable position to be in. The best long term solution to this is, of course, to reduce the population to a level where their islands CAN be self-sufficient in food once more.

Japan isn't self-sufficient period- it has to import food, oil and just about every other natural resource and mineral.

Transferring everyone's industry to the Canadian shield might benefit Canadians, but everyone everywhere else would be out of work and starving.

You said vital industries. Why would this be all of them?

No, you fucking moron - putting all your industry outside your borders means your average citizen has no work and starves.

Than your focus on stability is a red herring- all you are worried about is jobs. Which is protectionism.

You are looking SOLELY at the bottom line, as all too many people do these days, and completely forgetting that there are live human beings out there who need to work and earn a living.

Foreigners aren't human beings? Poor people in the third world don't need jobs? Heck, with the lower human capital in the third world, you need to hire more people which means more jobs.

A particular country does not have to produce ALL the steel it uses, but it should have a steel industry so that if something happens to those people overseas they don't lose ALL their access to steel products. If all the world cedes steel making to, say, the Chinese because it's cheaper and dismantles all the steel industry outside China then there are two serious problems. 1) China can then jack up prices as much as they want with a captive market and 2) if something happens to fuck up China the rest of the world is fucked, too. Yet more and more steel production is Chinese and nowhere else. This is global stupidity. Worse yet, it comes from capitalists who SHOULD know the value of some healthy competition.

So every major nation should keep a large enough reserve industry to completely fullfil local demand? Than why would they trade in the first place if you are going to pay for the production of resources at home anyways?

So was I. WHERE in my references to the poor did I specify "The United States?" Nowhere. YOU read that into what I posted. You aren't reading what I write, you're reading what you want to believe.

You are aware that in China and India large numbers of poor people are being pulled into the middle class during the 1990s to now?

A choice between starvation and exploitation is hardly a choice at all. The fact people might otherwise starve to death does not make it OK to arrange things such that they will exist in dire poverty for generations, all for the wealth of people in other places.

Just because it is not the most moral choice doesn't mean it isn't better than letting people starve to death.

WHERE did I say I sought the simplest solution? Nowhere.

Because humans tend to go for the simplest solution possible for the problem? Am I wrong in assuming you aren't aiming for the most complicated?

What the fuck is wrong with you, that you think it's OK to drive DOWN the wages of the poor?

The reason that companies move overseas is because
-the taxes are lower
-the regulations are laxer
-the wages are cheaper

You said you wanted the companies back in the US and what better way than to make it cheaper for them to produce in the US? As for driving down wages- it isn't. It is equalizing it with the rest of Lation America. At the end their wages should be higher.

We need to RAISE their wages so they will buy more (the poor almost immediately will spend any increase in wealth, which benefits the economy) and live better.

Their wages will be higher than they used to be so they will consume more. And they are in the US so they don't have to live in a nation that imports food- a bonus!

[eion]

Fuck you. You asked if it would drag them into a war and I gave a lesser example which did.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are seen as a game changer though. They are reviled nearly universally. It is seen as the military equivalent of kicking someone in the groin. Had 9-11 been a nuclear attach none of us have any idea how GWB would have responded. The nuclear policy of the U.S. prior to this announcement has always relied on ambiguity.

I'm saying that since the change in the situation was the introduction of nuclear weapons, they are probably responsible for the lack of a global war.

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because we found a new and more effective way to kill each other doesn't mean it is responsible for a lack of global war. I could make the argument that the development of jet travel after WWII led to a global village effect that reduced global tensions by allowing world leaders to meet face to face more often, which humanized them. Or that satellite technology allowed better monitoring of threats and neutralization by other means.

[Broomstick]

Yes. They were foolish enough to overpopulate their islands.

Are you saying that nations should not have a larger population than it can feed?

Ideally, no, a nation shouldn't have a larger population that it is capable of feeding. As noted, some nations, due to small geographic size, are unlikely to ever attain that goal but yes, that is what I meant.

That there should be no trade in food?

Just because you don't have to trade doesn't mean you don't want to. As an example there are many types of food that can't be grown in, say, Canada. That doesn't mean the Canadians have to have them, but if they want oranges they'll need to engage in some trade.

I still say that's a stupid and vulnerable position to be in. The best long term solution to this is, of course, to reduce the population to a level where their islands CAN be self-sufficient in food once more.

Japan isn't self-sufficient period- it has to import food, oil and just about every other natural resource and mineral.

Yes. It is unfortunate for the Japanese. Actually at one point Japan was self-sufficient but of course with their current population that is impossible.

Transferring everyone's industry to the Canadian shield might benefit Canadians, but everyone everywhere else would be out of work and starving.

You said vital industries. Why would this be all of them?

Transferring all of a vital US industry into Canada would be stupid. Why can't you see that? Even though the Canadians are wonderful neighbors it's not a good idea to give all of a vital resource or industry into someone else's hands.

No, you fucking moron - putting all your industry outside your borders means your average citizen has no work and starves.

Than your focus on stability is a red herring- all you are worried about is jobs. Which is protectionism.

If your citizens don't have jobs how will they sustain themselves? How will they pay for food, housing, clothing, education, all other things with no wages?

You are looking SOLELY at the bottom line, as all too many people do these days, and completely forgetting that there are live human beings out there who need to work and earn a living.

Foreigners aren't human beings? Poor people in the third world don't need jobs? Heck, with the lower human capital in the third world, you need to hire more people which means more jobs.

Right - the trend these days is to give ALL the jobs to people outside the US border in the name of saving money - leaving MILLIONS of Americans unemployed, unable to obtain work, and with no safety net. Good job. Or are you saying that the lives of people in the third world matter more than the lives of Americans?

A particular country does not have to produce ALL the steel it uses, but it should have a steel industry so that if something happens to those people overseas they don't lose ALL their access to steel products. If all the world cedes steel making to, say, the Chinese because it's cheaper and dismantles all the steel industry outside China then there are two serious problems. 1) China can then jack up prices as much as they want with a captive market and 2) if something happens to fuck up China the rest of the world is fucked, too. Yet more and more steel production is Chinese and nowhere else. This is global stupidity. Worse yet, it comes from capitalists who SHOULD know the value of some healthy competition.

So every major nation should keep a large enough reserve industry to completely fullfil local demand? Than why would they trade in the first place if you are going to pay for the production of resources at home anyways?

Not fill ALL demand, fill essential demand. If something happens you'll have to cut out the luxury, but yes, ideally, enough for essential demand.

So was I. WHERE in my references to the poor did I specify "The United States?" Nowhere. YOU read that into what I posted. You aren't reading what I write, you're reading what you want to believe.

You are aware that in China and India large numbers of poor people are being pulled into the middle class during the 1990s to now?

And even larger numbers still left in poverty, some in indentured servitude no better than outright slavery.

A choice between starvation and exploitation is hardly a choice at all. The fact people might otherwise starve to death does not make it OK to arrange things such that they will exist in dire poverty for generations, all for the wealth of people in other places.

Just because it is not the most moral choice doesn't mean it isn't better than letting people starve to death.

Perhaps we should follow the example of Henry Ford and pay the workers more than just starvation wages?

WHERE did I say I sought the simplest solution? Nowhere.

Because humans tend to go for the simplest solution possible for the problem? Am I wrong in assuming you aren't aiming for the most complicated?

I'm aiming for the best long term solution - that is likely to be neither the most nor the least complex.

What the fuck is wrong with you, that you think it's OK to drive DOWN the wages of the poor?

The reason that companies move overseas is because
-the taxes are lower
-the regulations are laxer
-the wages are cheaper

Fine, lower taxes - so the company extracts from an area without returning anything to it, without supporting the infrastructure that allows to exist. How wonderful it that?

Laxer regulations? Marvelous - leave behind toxic wastelands, poisoned water, crippled minds and bodies

Lower wages? Great - let's keep the poor just barely alive so we can extract more from them.

Great plan you monster.

You said you wanted the companies back in the US and what better way than to make it cheaper for them to produce in the US? As for driving down wages- it isn't. It is equalizing it with the rest of Lation America. At the end their wages should be higher.

Ha! Meanwhile, the US will turn into a third world shithole run by a pack of plutocrats and inhabited by millions with no work, no income, and no safety net. How stable a situation do you think that will be?

We need to RAISE their wages so they will buy more (the poor almost immediately will spend any increase in wealth, which benefits the economy) and live better.

Their wages will be higher than they used to be so they will consume more. And they are in the US so they don't have to live in a nation that imports food- a bonus!

There aren't any jobs available in the US right now! The Mexicans are going back home. Why the FUCK would foreigners want to come HERE? There is no work!

[Anguirus]

Whether or not this was a mistake, I think Obama scored the quote of the day when asked to respond to Sarah Palin's criticism.

"I really have no response," the president said. "Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."

Obama added: "If the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."

From here

[DudeGuyMan]

The whole declaration is empty fappery anyway. "We won't use nukes on someone who does X... unless we decide to change our mind at the time."

[Samuel]

Ideally, no, a nation shouldn't have a larger population that it is capable of feeding. As noted, some nations, due to small geographic size, are unlikely to ever attain that goal but yes, that is what I meant.

Why? Do you have any justification for this? Should a nation not consume more of any resource than it can make at home? I know food is unique, but presumably you need to include the industry to make farm machinary, to make railroad cars and track, fertilizer, etc.

Actually at one point Japan was self-sufficient but of course with their current population that is impossible.

Because they used muscle labor for all their energy needs. It is extremely easy to be self-sufficient if you have a low enough technological base.

Transferring all of a vital US industry into Canada would be stupid.

Why? If you want them to be safe, what better place? After all, they haven't had a civil war or revolution so they are obviously more politically stable. And they are near enough that they would never bother attempting to shake us down.

If your citizens don't have jobs how will they sustain themselves? How will they pay for food, housing, clothing, education, all other things with no wages?

That is entirely unrelated to the argument that you need them here because foreign nations are unstable.

Or are you saying that the lives of people in the third world matter more than the lives of Americans?

Since productivity is high in the US and low in the 3rd world, that means that eliminating one job here results in having to higher multiple people to compensate. Also, I'm pretty sure the marginal returns to wealth are higher in the third world so that they benefit more.

Not fill ALL demand, fill essential demand. If something happens you'll have to cut out the luxury, but yes, ideally, enough for essential demand.

So the agricultral sector, the transportation sector and all the inputs need to support those?

And even larger numbers still left in poverty, some in indentured servitude no better than outright slavery.

Which contests what I said how? People are moving out of poverty in the third world- not everyone and not fast, but it is happening.

Perhaps we should follow the example of Henry Ford and pay the workers more than just starvation wages?

That is completely unrelated to what I said.

I'm aiming for the best long term solution - that is likely to be neither the most nor the least complex.

The least complex long term solution than. That would simply be tarriff barriers.

Fine, lower taxes - so the company extracts from an area without returning anything to it, without supporting the infrastructure that allows to exist. How wonderful it that?

I was actually thinking more along the lines of having a company taxed the difference between the tax rates they are operating and the US in order to erode that advantage.

Laxer regulations? Marvelous - leave behind toxic wastelands, poisoned water, crippled minds and bodies

Or you can do what the US did with the practice of bribing local officials and try to get foreign countries to match our regulations. Or do that and subsidize the use of pollution controls for domestic companies.

Lower wages? Great - let's keep the poor just barely alive so we can extract more from them.

Hey, you wanted the jobs here.

Great plan you monster.

Do you have a plan? You have said you aren't in favor of protectionism, but I'm not seeing how you are going to accomplish your goal without either that or a government nationalization/massive subsidization of vital industries.

Ha! Meanwhile, the US will turn into a third world shithole run by a pack of plutocrats and inhabited by millions with no work, no income, and no safety net. How stable a situation do you think that will be?

Hey- you need a safety net for this to work. Otherwise productivity per worker drops and there isn't a difference between building a factory here and elsewhere.

There aren't any jobs available in the US right now! The Mexicans are going back home. Why the FUCK would foreigners want to come HERE? There is no work!

Because we are in the midst of a recession and because it is cheaper to produce goods overseas... you know, the problems we have been talking about trying to solve?

[Yogi]

So we won't use nukes against countries with no nukes, and this is supposed to hurt our deterrence? That means that there exists a country, that does not have nuclear weapons, but that we couldn't bomb back into the stone age with conventional weapons? What is this country?

[Simon_Jester]

Transferring all of a vital US industry into Canada would be stupid.

Why? If you want them to be safe, what better place? After all, they haven't had a civil war or revolution so they are obviously more politically stable. And they are near enough that they would never bother attempting to shake us down.

Look, Samuel, I don't really agree with Broomstick all that far on this issue, but this is a really dumb counterargument to throw at her.

Safety, in and of itself, isn't really what she's getting at; control is. Delegating the basic means of survival to someone else because "it's safer there" completely misses the point, because it places those necessities outside one's own control.

Even if one's own control is imperfectly efficient, or imperfectly safe, in a lot of situations there's something to be said for just having control. Because the situation that led you to calculate that it would be safer or more efficient to give up control can change, and if you don't have control there will be nothing you can do.

As an example, imagine I found out that someone had planted a bomb in my head, and then got my hands on the remote control that detonates the bomb. Obviously, the remote control to a suicide device needs to be somewhere safe, in the hands of someone I can trust not to set it off. Let's say that statistically speaking, you are marginally less absent-minded and unstable than me. Does that mean I should trust you with the remote?

I would say "no." There are very few other people I would prefer to hand life-and-death power over myself to, people I trust more than I trust myself. Because losing control over something that poses an existential threat to me removes my ability to deal with changing circumstances that affect the nature of the threat.

Now, would you feel differently? Would you pass control of the bomb to anyone who scored better than you on stability tests, just because they are marginally more stable than you in the abstract sense?

If not, why do you think that any nation should do the same?

[Samuel]

So nations should act rational... because they don't like the feel of the decision they make?

Would you pass control of the bomb to anyone who scored better than you on stability tests, just because they are marginally more stable than you in the abstract sense?

Yes. I'm assuming marginal is large enough to be measured. I don't do surgery on myself and I know that there are a large number of other fields I am not competant to perform. I get a feeling of assurance, not from control, but from knowing the individual responsible knows what they are doing.

[Tiriol]

So nations should act rational... because they don't like the feel of the decision they make?

Would you pass control of the bomb to anyone who scored better than you on stability tests, just because they are marginally more stable than you in the abstract sense?

Yes. I'm assuming marginal is large enough to be measured. I don't do surgery on myself and I know that there are a large number of other fields I am not competant to perform. I get a feeling of assurance, not from control, but from knowing the individual responsible knows what they are doing.

I don't think you quite grasp what Broomstick and Simon_Jester are trying to say.

Let's illustrate further with the bomb analogue: if the person you have entrusted the bomb gives the remote to someone else, what will you then do? Or if he later in his life changes (becomes alcoholic, dependent on drugs, demented etc.), what will you then do? You have already given him remote control to your very existence and he can act with impunity with it and you, may I add, have no say in the matter.

The situation is same with nations and countries: sure, Sweden might be able to totally outsource, say, its agriculture to Finland - but what will Sweden do if Finns elect a total asshole of an government which has no respect for sovereignity of Sweden or any other country for that matter? They can of course try to find other sources of food, but that will take time and meanwhile they have no access to any food, save for what they may have stored. If they would have retained at least some means of food production, they could halt the advance of a possible famine and feed, if not well, at least adequately, their population.

And then there's the problem of losing domestic jobs: if you outsource enough (or, God forbid, everything), you have just wiped out your domestic industry and economy. I know that you aren't arguing for outsourcing everything, so bare with me for a time: if your domestic economy takesa beating bad enough, you cannot continue the outsourcing, since you have no ability to pay for the foreign workforce and producers not to mention that you now face disturbingly angry domestic populace (and why not? You have taken away their jobs, after all.). And nations do have to uphold their domestic interests and keep their citizens happy. This is enlightened self-interest: sure, you could create many jobs out there by outsourcing, but at the cost of domestic workplaces, which in turn will hit you, as a nation, pretty bad if the outsourcing is big enough (both in terms of domestic support or the above-mentioned possibility of making yourself beholden to forces outside your ability to influence).

Nobody, I believe, is arguing for total domestic production of all things; however, what people are arguing for is that for a nation to continue functioning or, indeed, existing, it has to retain some production of its own.