You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
The very real threat of nuclear war hasn’t been on the radar since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Yet the capacity for self-annihilation remains. Consider the question raised by Daniel Ellsberg:
“When I say that there is a step that could reduce the risk of nuclear war significantly that has not been taken but could easily be taken, and that that is the elimination of American ICBMs, I’m referring to the fact that there is only one weapon in our arsenal that confronts a president with the urgent decision of whether to launch nuclear war and that is the decision to launch our ICBMs.”
He went on to stress that ICBMs are uniquely dangerous because they’re vulnerable to being destroyed in an attack (“use them or lose them”). In contrast, nuclear weapons on submarines and planes are not vulnerable and
“can be called back — in fact they don’t even have to be called back, they can… circle until they get a positive order to go ahead… That’s not true for ICBMs. They are fixed location, known to the Russians… Should we have mutual elimination of ICBMs? Of course. But we don’t need to wait for Russia to wake up to this reasoning… to do what we can to reduce the risk of nuclear war.”
And he concluded: “To remove ours is to eliminate not only the chance that we will use our ICBMs wrongly, but it also deprives the Russians of the fear that our ICBMs are on the way toward them.”
It would be a great step toward securing the world from a nuclear extinction level event, but the geopolitics of the situation make the move a contested one at best.
If the death of everyone can still be maintained with bombers and submarines do we really need the extra death (and extra threat) of ICBM’s? Is it even rational to consider the move as it might embolden the Russians and Chinese with even the perceived move away from MAD?
It is a calculus that makes sense in terms of lowering the threat to the entire world, but are the corresponding consequences (real or perceived) worth the risk, as it would have to be the US that would stand down first.
While reading Richer Morrison’s essay called Self-Defeating Environmental Activism this particular paragraph caught my eye ( I recommend reading the entire essay).
“I call this unconstrained in part as a reference to the distinction the economist Thomas Sowell advanced, of a constrained vs. unconstrained view of society and government. The constrained view—broadly consistent with the ideas of our Founding Fathers—suggests that human beings are by nature given to abusing and fighting over political power, and thus governing structures have to be limited and divided. The constrained view also acknowledges that our most important societal problems are not amenable to permanent solutions but are simply a matter of competing interests and values and thus can only be balanced toward a least bad resolution. The unconstrained vision—more amenable to Progressive theorists—holds that governments should be empowered to require good outcomes and eradicate bad outcomes, and obviously then assign behaviors to one of those categories.”
The constrained and unconstrained views of society are important theoretical and ideological origins for understanding how our views are shaped and reinforced. With the recent seismic changes to the body politic on the Left(the move toward a totalizing activist identitatarian ideology) I’ve had to reevaluate many of the positions I’ve taken in the past and come up with new ones, or at least different stances on the issues.
I’d like to say the process is finished, but much work remains in order to rationalize and reorder the priorities of one’s world view. Adopting a more constrained view of government’s role in society is part of the ideological framework that I am adapting toward.
I think the distinction Morrison mentions (quoting Sowell) is fertile ground for the recasting the theoretical lens of how society is viewed.
Douglas Murray has a hard rule about public debates. He will treat you with respect – until you cross the line of politeness and decency. Then, the gloves come off.
Very close to a master class is put on by Cenk Uygur on how not to hold your own in a debate and maintain your credibility.
” But it is overwhelming that Hamas wanted War. This was not the irrepressible angst of the desperate. Who want freedom? Who want better? Nor certainly want anything approximating peace. They wanted the Jews to know that they want them to burn… again.”
“I am changed forever more [after watching the Oct 7th video], there is your context madam presidents…this is not about a territorial dispute, it’s not about oppressors and the oppressed, it’s not about religion or ideology. Any agenda that was on the table before October 6 is forever gone, conversation is over. How dare you…what is wrong with you people, you know better…who do you answer to?…If Hamas behavior does not cross the line, then you don’t have one…light always prevails over darkness & good over evil.” powerful words from @DrPhil
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…