00timh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,318
- Reaction score
- 516
- Location
- upstate NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You are going on the presumption that even if a leader went off the rails, others would prevent him from taking action out of their own self preservation. It works with most countries, but what about some of the middle east countries where you have an entire ideologic shift into martyrdome? Besides that, the same type of clearance and safety features that we have in launching will likely not exist if NK or Iran were to launch. It would be far easier for the leader of one of those countries to be able to order and have a launch executed than it would be for the U.S. to do so. Too many are in the loop so that even if Obama was to wake up deranged one morning and order a nuke strike without reason, it wouldn't happen. The same cannot be assured in other countries.First, committing genocide does not, in itself, threaten self-preservation at all. Consequently, the idea that the willingness of leaders to stand by genocide is evidence that they will stand by a nuclear launch is unfounded, particularly since genocide is often done in order to PRESERVE the "pure" state of a nation.
Second, taking risks in conventional warfare is not the same as taking risks with nuclear warfare. Consequently, the idea that actions in conventional war that lead to military defeat are evidence that leaders would stand by and watch their superior launch a nuclear attack is unfounded. Destruction in conventional warfare is rarely certain. Destruction in nuclear warfare is certain.
Again, the problem with your argument is that you keep trying to discredit a theory about how leaders interested in survival respond to nuclear weapons by pointing to how those leaders may act in situations that don't involve nuclear weapons. Fighting an ambitious war and losing like Germany did is just not evidence that German leaders wouldn't have stopped Hitler from unleashing nukes if he lived today. Committing genocide isn't evidence of that. For some reason, you seem determined to ignore the uniqueness of nuclear weapons and to ignore how the certainty of annihilation is a much more compelling reason to stop a 'crazy leader' than fighting a conventional war with a chance at winning.
I actually haven't denied that as the entire premise of Walt's argument is that people willing to launch nuclear weapons exist and that others would stop them. And yes, many Islamic people are willing to die for their cause. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that the majority of Iranian leaders are willing to let Iran be blown to pieces and that's the point of contention, so I'm waiting for that evidence.
I didn't accuse you of lack of intellect. I said that the fact that you chose personal attacks over reasoned arguments implied that you don't feel confident with your intellect.