How small nations defend themselves

[billvon 2,476]

Good editorial in this Sunday's LA Times:

The world may be about to get even more dangerous.

President Bush believes that a preemptive military strike against Iraq will force other states to think twice before acquiring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. It's more likely to have the opposite effect. Small powers will have a greater incentive to acquire weapons of mass destruction as their only deterrent against the whims of the world's only superpower.

Historically, one refuge for small powers has been international law. If great powers accepted an international legal framework, they might use military force less arbitrarily. For a time in the post-Cold War world, the United Nations offered hope of such an international order based on law, multilaterally enforced.

Small states have also tried to protect themselves by doing nothing to threaten great powers. Success depends on the goodwill and restraint of great powers, or at least the predictability of their actions. Finland's relationship with the former Soviet Union is a classic example.

The Bush administration's doctrine of military preemption has undercut these security strategies. Its willingness to wage war unilaterally means that small countries can no longer look to the international community to brake U.S. decisions to use force against them. If a small state isn't a U.S. ally, it's all the more likely to come under the gun of Washington. What's more, it doesn't even have to present a clear and present danger to U.S. security to warrant an attack. It need only have the potential to develop such a threat sometime in the future.

. . . .

Forty years ago, Fidel Castro feared that the United States was planning a second Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow him. Hoping to deter such an attack, he accepted Soviet intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Some Bush administration officials have compared President John F. Kennedy's response to that crisis to Bush's preemptive policy toward Iraq. In fact, Kennedy ruled out a preemptive strike and resolved the crisis diplomatically by agreeing not to attack Cuba, thereby providing a formal guarantee to take the place of the missile deterrent. It is no coincidence that North Korea is demanding a formal U.S. declaration of nonaggression in exchange for ending its nuclear program.

When small countries feel threatened and have few options, they will be more prone to seek drastic means of safeguarding their security like weapons of mass destruction, even though that may make them less secure in the long run.

If the U.S. continues to claim the right to launch a preemptive militarily strike against a country, regardless of international law and opinion, it creates a world described by philosopher Thomas Hobbes as the war of all against all, where "clubs are trumps." Every small country then has an interest in getting itself a very big club.

[Jib 0]

Let me see if I understand. A small country now has an excuse to develop weapons to use on its own people or anyone else in an attempt to prevent being attacked by a bigger country for having those weapons? What's deterring the US? Why's the small country feeling threatened again? Because it invaded another country or refused to cooperate with the UN?
As for North Korea, the UN hasn't seemed to put a dent in their human rights problems, but I haven't heard that we have any plans to take military action against it IF they end their nuclear program, which they agreed to do almost a decade ago.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 2,476]

>A small country now has an excuse to develop weapons to use on its own people . . .

No, a small country now must develop those weapons to prevent attacks by larger countries. Previously they could rely on the UN or on simply not provoking large countries; now we seem to have a unilateral preemptive-attack policy which means they can no longer rely on those things.

>What's deterring the US?

In the case of Iraq? Nothing; they don't have nukes. In the case of North Korea? Because they have nukes and South Korea is within missile range. China? The former USSR? Same thing.

Lesson to small countries - get nuclear weapons or risk "preemptive invasion."

>Why's the small country feeling threatened again?

Because we now have a policy of preemptive invasion - we invade if we think they will do something bad in the future. Small countries cannot control what the US thinks they will do in the future, and so need a better defense against aggression.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>A small country now has an excuse to develop weapons to use on its own people . . .

No, a small country now must develop those weapons to prevent attacks by larger countries. Previously they could rely on the UN or on simply not provoking large countries; now we seem to have a unilateral preemptive-attack policy which means they can no longer rely on those things.

>What's deterring the US?

In the case of Iraq? Nothing; they don't have nukes. In the case of North Korea? Because they have nukes and South Korea is within missile range. China? The former USSR? Same thing.

Lesson to small countries - get nuclear weapons or risk "preemptive invasion."

>Why's the small country feeling threatened again?

Because we now have a policy of preemptive invasion - we invade if we think they will do something bad in the future. Small countries cannot control what the US thinks they will do in the future, and so need a better defense against aggression.

Sorry. Don't buy it. Don't even rent it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jib 0]

Isn't creating a biological or nuclear weapon provoking the UN? Otherwise, why does the UN have weapons inspectors? The US is the teeth behind the UN and will act IF the UN refuses. That's not a policy of preemptive invasion. Countries like South Korea should be able to rely on the UN to police North Korea and not be ignored or evaded like Iraq has done.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[relyon 0]

Quote

Forty years ago, Fidel Castro feared that the United States was planning a second Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow him. Hoping to deter such an attack, he accepted Soviet intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba.

By his own admission, Casto came very close to launching a preemptive strike on the US with the same "deterrent" missles.

Quote

In fact, Kennedy ruled out a preemptive strike and resolved the crisis diplomatically by agreeing not to attack Cuba, thereby providing a formal guarantee to take the place of the missile deterrent.

There was a US naval blockade as well that definitely influenced (some might say decided) the outcome.

Bob

[billvon 2,476]

>Isn't creating a biological or nuclear weapon provoking the UN?

Hmm. Are we provoking the UN? We have more working nuclear weapons than all other countries combined. How about France, Israel, India, Pakistan, or China? Who gets to be in the nuclear club, and who decides that? (Hint - if you say the UN you're on the right track, which is one reason we should support the UN.)

> The US is the teeth behind the UN and will act IF the UN refuses.
> That's not a policy of preemptive invasion.

Preemptive invasion means you invade _before_ they do something bad to you. "They might support terrorism, build nukes and sell them, sell VX to Al Quaeda" are all arguments for preemptive invasion - an invasion to prevent something that might happen in the future.

>Countries like South Korea should be able to rely on the UN to police
> North Korea and not be ignored or evaded like Iraq has done.

I agree. So should North Korea. Even Iraq has a right to see that, if they obey the sanctions, the UN lives up to its word.

[kmcguffee 0]

That is oversimplified and stupid. Not even worth debating.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[AggieDave 6]

That is like saying a single event caused WWI. Sure, if you're going to break it down to tell a 6 year old, but it was a series of various events that led up to that point. Same with that article.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

That is oversimplified and stupid. Not even worth debating.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[ColdDuck 0]

Preemptive invasion means you invade _before_ they do something bad to you. "They might support terrorism, build nukes and sell them, sell VX to Al Quaeda" are all arguments for preemptive invasion - an invasion to prevent something that might happen in the future.

Not too pick on you, or single you out Bill, but I have seen this term be thrown around in the forums. So I just thought you all might want to what they mean.

Preemptive strike means: that you attack your enemy becasue you believe that an attack on you by him is imminent, by that I mean within a few hours maybe a few days.

A Preventive Strike is one where you attack your enemy because you believe that he will attack you as soon he has a military power advantage over your military power. The time frame here is usually years.

So our possible attack on Iraq is actually a preventive strike not a preemptive one.


I do believe there is some credence to what you are saying though. It does seem to be the policy of the Bush administration that if you don't have nukes we will threaten to attack you. But if you do have them we will talk to you.

"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"

[billvon 2,476]

>That is oversimplified and stupid.

More oversimplified than "we have to invade iraq to stop terrorism?" That's about as oversimplified (and wrong) as you can get, yet people continue to exclaim it.

There's this repetitive pattern that you see around here. The chicken hawks will claim a reason to go to war, then say "well, that doesn't matter" when it's shown to be wrong. Makes for some interesting but circular arguments:

Chicken hawk: Hussein gassed his own people! He used poison gas on the Iranians! Anyone like that is evil and has got to go down.

Peacenik: We supported him when he did that so he would kill more Iranians; we even sold him some of those chemical weapons.

Chicken hawk: Well, that doesn't matter! He might develop nuclear weapons in the future!

Peacenik: Even Powell doesn't claim he's close to being able to do that; North Korea and Pakistan are far worse threats in terms of nuclear terrorism.

Chicken hawk: Well, that doesn't matter! We have to stop terrorism, and he's where we start. I'm not willing to risk another 9/11!

Peacenik: There are no provable links between Hussein and Al Quaeda, and no proof that he's been involved in any anti-US terrorism in the past 10 years. Saudi Arabia has far stronger ties to terrorism and 9/11.

Chicken hawk: Well, that doesn't matter! He kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in clear violation of the UN cease-fire years ago!

Peacenik: Butler, the chief inspector, pulled them out of Iraq himself because he feared a sudden US attack in 1998; the Iraqis didn't kick them out. When we admitted that we were using them to spy for the US he did not invite them back.

Chicken hawk: Well, that doesn't matter! He's an evil man who uses chemical weapons!

And we get back to the top.

Whose explanations are oversimplified and stupid, again?

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Whose explanations are oversimplified and stupid, again?

Ummmm, the one you posted at the beginning of this thread.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[JJohnson 0]

Obviously the whole area of the Middle East is screwed forever and unstable. Iran before, Iraq now, Arafat, Hussien, Khadaffi...fuck em. I say the whole world pulls out of there....and reclaim the technology we gave them in the first place to get the oil out of the ground, on our way out. After they go broke an are unable to trade, we'll see what kind of mood they're in.
We'll all have to go back to horse drawn buggies for a while, but nothing good ever happens without great sacrifice....

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Chickenhawk: What about that pesky little problem of what happened to all that VX nerve gas, Anthrax, and missile delivery systems?

Peacenik: Well we sold them to him.

Chickenhawk: But what did he do with them? He certainly didn't pour them down the kitchen sink?

Peacenik: Well I think we oughta listen to Germany and France.

Chickenhawk: Why are the Iraqi scientists afraid to talk to the weapons inspectors?

Peacenik: Saddam hasn't threatened us. N.Korea is a bigger threat.

Chickenhawk: Why does Saddam need unmanned drones that have a range of 650 miles and are designed to deliver chemical weapons? They give him the capability to strike Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Peacenik: Those Isreali's are bigger terrorists that Saddam. Almost as bad as the U.S. America is the biggest terrorist nation on earth.

Chickenhawk: About that pesky problem with what happened to the VX nerve gas.................etc.