Republicans against debt...but not really...

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I'm not so sure. Denying the existence of something that you know darned well exists is not rational. Of course, if Akmadinajad is simply denying the holocaust to score political points, then that might not be irrational on his part. If Kim Jung Un is denying hunger in his own country, or his nation's helplessness against more powerful foes in order to hang on to power, maybe that is not irrational on his part either.

Denying plain facts is not rational, but just saying that you're denying them in order to score points with irrational people may be. Do you think that is what the leaders of Iran and NK are doing?

I obviously cannot read their minds, but to date I don't think they have done anything that shows clearly my interpretation of their actions as "rational" is incorrect. Of course, that can all change in the future.

I'm pretty sure we have political pundits in this country that pretend to deny plain facts in order to score political points, too, even when they know darned well that they're just spouting nonsense.

Perhaps, but again is pandering to a political base with an "inventive" description of the facts irrational?

Are there any other world leaders you would point to as irrational, or are they all perfectly sane?

I am not sure I would say they are "perfectly sane", but I don't think (at least on the international stage) that this equates to them automatically acting irrationally.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I obviously cannot read their minds, but to date I don't think they have done anything that shows clearly my interpretation of their actions as "rational" is incorrect. Of course, that can all change in the future.



Perhaps, but again is pandering to a political base with an "inventive" description of the facts irrational?



I am not sure I would say they are "perfectly sane", but I don't think (at least on the international stage) that this equates to them automatically acting irrationally.

As long as the world leaders are rational, then, MAD would keep the world from war.


At least from a real, shooting, all out war.

So, it must be a good thing.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

As long as the world leaders are rational, then, MAD would keep the world from war.

At least from a real, shooting, all out war.

So, it must be a good thing.

Based on what evidence?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Based on what evidence?

The evidence you just gave: Rational leaders aren't going to do something that will destroy their nation.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

The evidence you just gave: Rational leaders aren't going to do something that will destroy their nation.

I never said that... I was simply arguing that the leaders of North Korea and Iran are not persay acting "irrationally" as seems to be the common theme these days...

That said, rational people can make rational decisions that end poorly for them.. would you not agree?

Just because a leader acts "rationally" on the world stage does not mean nuclear war will never occur.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I never said that... I was simply arguing that the leaders of North Korea and Iran are not persay acting "irrationally" as seems to be the common theme these days...

A couple of pages back, you posted:

As for "betting on the rationality" of the leaders of Iran and North Korea, you argued in your above statement that they have only are acting irrationally when they "go beyond" dancing so close to the cliff. That would imply that they have done so before and in essence "jumped off."

Where are the real world examples of that? Without them, Iran and North Korea have not actually pulled anyone off the cliff, and hence are not acting irrationally.

I took that to mean that they aren't acting irrationally so long as they don't do something to actually go "over the cliff", i.e. destroy themselves. Is that a misinterpretation?

That said, rational people can make rational decisions that end poorly for them.. would you not agree?

Yes, I'd agree. There are unintended consequences, and unforeseen events that sometimes end badly.

Just because a leader acts "rationally" on the world stage does not mean nuclear war will never occur.

How is starting a nuclear war rational? It's hard to see how any rational person could conclude that there could actually be a victor from such a conflict.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

A couple of pages back, you posted:


I took that to mean that they aren't acting irrationally so long as they don't do something to actually go "over the cliff", i.e. destroy themselves. Is that a misinterpretation?

I was speaking solely on the issue of their "rationality", however I do not think that equates to any proof that MAD works simply because leaders act rationally.

Rational leaders can still cause massive destruction.

Yes, I'd agree. There are unintended consequences, and unforeseen events that sometimes end badly.

I concur.

How is starting a nuclear war rational? It's hard to see how any rational person could conclude that there could actually be a victor from such a conflict.

I would disagree that their couldn't be a victor in a nuclear war, but I will put that aside and try to speak to a larger picture.

One might argue that the leaders in North Korea have already essentially destroyed their country... but not in an irrational way. (Assuming you agree with my arguments about what rationality is.)

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I was speaking solely on the issue of their "rationality", however I do not think that equates to any proof that MAD works simply because leaders act rationally.

And yet, irrational leaders be likely to assure that MAD didn't work.

Rational leaders can still cause massive destruction.

Yes, sometimes by accident, and sometimes when the destruction puts an end to even more destruction. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are an example.

I would disagree that their couldn't be a victor in a nuclear war, but I will put that aside and try to speak to a larger picture.

One might argue that the leaders in North Korea have already essentially destroyed their country... but not in an irrational way. (Assuming you agree with my arguments about what rationality is.)

No, I still think that destroying your own country is proof enough in and of itself of irrationality, particularly when they continue the same policies that resulted in that destruction.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

And yet, irrational leaders be likely to assure that MAD didn't work.

I don't dislike MAD because I think the world is full of irrational leaders, I dislike MAD because there is no evidence that it works... therefore, basing a foreign policy on it is idiotic in my view.

Yes, sometimes by accident, and sometimes when the destruction puts an end to even more destruction. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are an example.

Then the use of nuclear weapons is (according to you) a good, rational thing?

No, I still think that destroying your own country is proof enough in and of itself of irrationality, particularly when they continue the same policies that resulted in that destruction.

Yet they did not destroy themselves, they just prop themselves up on the backs of the people.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I don't dislike MAD because I think the world is full of irrational leaders, I dislike MAD because there is no evidence that it works... therefore, basing a foreign policy on it is idiotic in my view.

Yet, what alternative was there back in the days of the Soviet Union?
The evidence that it works is that there never was a nuclear holocaust that destroyed both countries, along with most of he civilized world. While we can't prove cause and effect, we do know that we had MAD, and didn't have an all out war with the Soviets.

Then the use of nuclear weapons is (according to you) a good, rational thing?

In that instance, it was. We were the only nation that had a nuclear weapon, and the use of it put a quick end to the war in Japan.

It would have been better had the bomb never been developed, neither by the US nor anyone else, but there is no way now to reverse history.

Yet they did not destroy themselves, they just prop themselves up on the backs of the people.

You could argue that the leaders don't destroy themselves. However, you were more correct when you posted:

One might argue that the leaders in North Korea have already essentially destroyed their country

Destroying one's country doesn't seem to me at all rational, even though the leaders themselves are still in power.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Yet, what alternative was there back in the days of the Soviet Union?

To be clear, which "days" of the Soviet Union?

The evidence that it works is that there never was a nuclear holocaust that destroyed both countries, along with most of he civilized world. While we can't prove cause and effect, we do know that we had MAD, and didn't have an all out war with the Soviets.

The sky was also blue, and we did not have an all out war with the Soviets. Without any real evidence, MAD has just as much validity as arguing that since the sky is blue, it prevented nuclear war.

In that instance, it was. We were the only nation that had a nuclear weapon, and the use of it put a quick end to the war in Japan.

For much of the 1950s and into the 1960s we held a huge advantage over the USSR in terms of nuclear capability, why not just "put a quick end" to the Cold War?

It would have been better had the bomb never been developed, neither by the US nor anyone else, but there is no way now to reverse history.

If you believe in MAD, then you ought to believe that nuclear weapons can be vital in ensuring peace.


Let me ask you this:

Under MAD, we often hear that defensive weapons are destabilizing to the whole system... however that is an inherent contradiction..

MAD is assumed to work because your opponent is assumed to be rational and therefore predictably deterrable..however in the same breath we often hear that defensive weapons destabilize deterrence and might cause an opponent to strike first..

An opponent cannot be prudent and thus reliably deterrent and at the same time be willing to strike first in a potentially suicidal act. So which is it? An opponent is rational and deterrable when we arbitrarily decide they are, but will suddenly do an about face when we arbitrarily decide it again?

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

To be clear, which "days" of the Soviet Union?



The sky was also blue, and we did not have an all out war with the Soviets. Without any real evidence, MAD has just as much validity as arguing that since the sky is blue, it prevented nuclear war.



For much of the 1950s and into the 1960s we held a huge advantage over the USSR in terms of nuclear capability, why not just "put a quick end" to the Cold War?



If you believe in MAD, then you ought to believe that nuclear weapons can be vital in ensuring peace.


Let me ask you this:

Under MAD, we often hear that defensive weapons are destabilizing to the whole system... however that is an inherent contradiction..

MAD is assumed to work because your opponent is assumed to be rational and therefore predictably deterrable..however in the same breath we often hear that defensive weapons destabilize deterrence and might cause an opponent to strike first..

An opponent cannot be prudent and thus reliably deterrent and at the same time be willing to strike first in a potentially suicidal act. So which is it? An opponent is rational and deterrable when we arbitrarily decide they are, but will suddenly do an about face when we arbitrarily decide it again?

I believe the reasoning is as follows:

We have the capacity to destroy the enemy, and he has the capacity to destroy us, so a rational leader will refrain from a mutual destruction (the basic premise behind MAD).

If we get a workable and reliable missile defense, then we an go ahead and destroy our enemy, and he can't destroy us. Therefore, we should work on a missile defense. On the other hand, if our enemy develops a workable missile defense, then he can destroy us, and we can't destroy him. Therefore, we must keep our enemy from developing a missile defense.

Whether or not that line of reasoning works in the real world we don't know, as neither the US nor the Soviet Union ever developed a missile defense that could reliably protect one nation from the other.

Ironically, the attempt to develop such a system contributed to the economic collapse of the Soviets, as our capitalist based economy was much stronger than their socialism. What won was not a military system, but an economic one.

Does MAD work? As you said, there is no way to prove cause and effect. No one knows. Let's hope it never is proven not to work by the occurrence of a nuclear holocaust. Such a war would set civilization back a thousand years. There could never be a winner to such a conflict.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I believe the reasoning is as follows:

We have the capacity to destroy the enemy, and he has the capacity to destroy us, so a rational leader will refrain from a mutual destruction (the basic premise behind MAD).

If we get a workable and reliable missile defense, then we an go ahead and destroy our enemy, and he can't destroy us. Therefore, we should work on a missile defense. On the other hand, if our enemy develops a workable missile defense, then he can destroy us, and we can't destroy him. Therefore, we must keep our enemy from developing a missile defense.

Whether or not that line of reasoning works in the real world we don't know, as neither the US nor the Soviet Union ever developed a missile defense that could reliably protect one nation from the other.

Ironically, the attempt to develop such a system contributed to the economic collapse of the Soviets, as our capitalist based economy was much stronger than their socialism. What won was not a military system, but an economic one.

Does MAD work? As you said, there is no way to prove cause and effect. No one knows. Let's hope it never is proven not to work by the occurrence of a nuclear holocaust. Such a war would set civilization back a thousand years. There could never be a winner to such a conflict.

Proving Mad works, is impossible...proving it failed...well sucks.
but then again. proving that your missile shield failed..also sucks.
And there is no proof that a missile shield would prevent a attack from being successful. But at least thats a big easier to get a qualitative amount to back up the statement...

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I believe the reasoning is as follows:

We have the capacity to destroy the enemy, and he has the capacity to destroy us, so a rational leader will refrain from a mutual destruction (the basic premise behind MAD).

If we get a workable and reliable missile defense, then we an go ahead and destroy our enemy, and he can't destroy us. Therefore, we should work on a missile defense. On the other hand, if our enemy develops a workable missile defense, then he can destroy us, and we can't destroy him. Therefore, we must keep our enemy from developing a missile defense.

Whether or not that line of reasoning works in the real world we don't know, as neither the US nor the Soviet Union ever developed a missile defense that could reliably protect one nation from the other.

Ironically, the attempt to develop such a system contributed to the economic collapse of the Soviets, as our capitalist based economy was much stronger than their socialism. What won was not a military system, but an economic one.

I understand the MAD argument... my point is simply there is no proof to back up it... and when people continually argue that a limited missile defense structure is going to somehow ruin MAD (assuming you buy into it to begin with) I just have to wonder what they are basing that on..especially since a limited missile defense will not be capable of stopping a major attack.

Does MAD work? As you said, there is no way to prove cause and effect. No one knows. Let's hope it never is proven not to work by the occurrence of a nuclear holocaust. Such a war would set civilization back a thousand years. There could never be a winner to such a conflict.

A nuclear holocaust would set the world back yes.. but what scenario are you envisioning in which a nuclear holocaust will occur?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Proving Mad works, is impossible...proving it failed...well sucks.
but then again. proving that your missile shield failed..also sucks.
And there is no proof that a missile shield would prevent a attack from being successful. But at least thats a big easier to get a qualitative amount to back up the statement...

There is proof that a missile shield can do the job for which is has been designed.. it is in the testing of the system. The system is not perfect (as tests indicate), and there are numerous things I would change about it, but some level of protection is better than none.

Our missile defense structure is not designed to prevent a large attack, but our missile defense structure can defend against a small scale attack.