In my previous posts about mutually assured destruction I made the point many times over that the US needs to be willing to respond with nuclear force if we're attacked with nuclear weapons. Various people have come up with various retaliation schemes, but the government hasn't made many public statements on the matter.
However, there have been some hints, and they have quite deliberately reinforced MAD -- I'm almost 100% certain that our government has delivered covert threats to many countries reminding them that if we're attacked with a nuclear weapon, they're 15 minutes behind us. For obvious reasons it's to the advantage of all parties concerned that such threats don't leak out.
Anyone who doubts that America has and will follow such a policy doesn't understand how the real world works. The government tries to protect us from a lot of information that would hurt our tender sensibilities, and often does act in our best interests even when we wouldn't recognize them. Good or bad (and many libertarians won't like it), it's the truth.
In reality, the policy applies to all WMD. There is some speculation that this is why Saddam did not use WMD against us in Gulf I.
Although I can't imagine things turning out worse for him if he had used them, than it eventually did.
The only thing worse would've been thousands of more civilian deaths, and I can't believe that was a deterrant to him.
Yeah, but he didn't expect to be deposed, he didn't think we'd really attack.
As regards the government "protecting" us from hurtful information, this libertarian might not like it much, but he understands the necessities.
It's a piercing case for putting only trustworthy people, with trustworthy morals, in positions of power. And it reinforces my conviction that the one big thing -- national defense and the anti-terror campaign -- must continue to trump all other political considerations for the immediate future. You can recover from debt. You can't recover from death.
It's a piercing case for putting only trustworthy people, with trustworthy morals, in positions of power.
Uhhh...Can you expand on this Francis? I think I know what you mean, but this is a scenario ripe for abuse.
S3, please remember that the context in which I'm saying this -- a state of affairs in which We The People are essentially unable to alter our government or affect its decisions while they'r ebeing made, and in which we face a number of lethal threats from many sources -- determines all.
A State without secrets cannot function at all. I can't prove this, but I can't come up with any counter-evidence, either. If the State is mulcting and oppressing us -- unfortunately, this is rather more often the case than not -- then we would naturally want to penetrate its secrets, because they'd be shielding corrupt oppressors from their just deserts. But if the State is sincerely working to protect us and simply needs to keep some things secret to do it properly, then we have to let it function and trust to our rulers' ethics.
In recent days, I've become convinced that Americans' traditional protections against the State -- the Constitution and its foundation principles -- have passed into desuetude, probably for good. That being the case, our only protection is benevolence: the benevolence of our rulers. So we can no longer afford to install amoral but efficient rulers and hope that the strictures on the State will shield us from them while we exploit their abilities for our public benefit. We can only afford to elevate men who have a demonstrated record of benevolence, humility and innocence, and trust that those characteristics will hold once they've been invested.
Should we make exceptions? Hard to say. Jimmy Carter came close to destroying the country with his ineptitude, even though he probably didn't have a mean or corrupt bone in his body. (He wasn't smart enough to be corrupt; if he'd chosen a life of crime, he'd have starved to death before age thirty.) But all such calls will be quite subjective.
Will there be abuses? Of course. But until We The People get a collar around the State's neck once again, it's mandatory that we trust power only to the trustworthy. We might get a little governmental restraint that way, too, though, given recent evidence, I wouldn't bet the rent on it.
FWP: That's an interesting perspective, and I hadn't heard it put like that before. I agree with your general assessment, but in the extreme case I don't think it's ever possible to formulate a government that would work just as well with both moral and immoral leaders.
That is pretty much what I thought you meant. If we have lost control, however, our primary duty is to regain control, not to install benevolent rulers. This is because there is no way to tell who is and who isn't. Your example of Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of the electorate not having the means, but the example that needs to be in the forefront is (always) Hitler. The chances of another Carter are slim but the chances of another Hitler are astronomical.
I wouldn't argue with either of you, guys. But while we struggle to get government back into its Constitutional cage, we'll still have to endure government -- which means we'll have to keep choosing rulers. So the point is not in any sense a trivial one.
I wouldn't argue with either of you, guys.
Well...I'm not arguing with you either, Francis. It's just that it is sort of like not arguing about snakes being good rat killers. After the rats are gone, you still have the snake on your hands.