I'm not sure that applies to nukes any more than it applies to warfare in general. A hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million - how much is enough to make killing "insane"? Decision makers for thousands of years have started wars knowing full well that many, many people will die as a result of that decision. The button pusher has even less guilt because his people won't be dying like they would in a conventional war - only the enemy will die. Their are other issues the button pusher must face but this isn't one of them.
Well, no, it didn't happen in spite of them since they didn't order anyone to use nukes. It was averted in spite of the officers who ignored the obvious and were trigger happy. Better communication and decision-making is the solution to that problem.
Again I point to the only times a bomb was used. Truman did pick cities with large military significance but knew full well that most casualties would be civilian. Standard bombing missions allowed much better targeting, meaning fewer civilian casualties, even though they were, obviously, much less effective to the overall war effort.
Yes, American casualties would have been higher - which supports one part of my original statement, "The button pusher has even less guilt because his people won't be dying like they would in a conventional war - only the enemy will die."
While I agree with the rest of your statements I'm not so sure about this one. Everything would depend on how good and well-recognized nuclear forensics is and how much responsibility for the material most nations placed on the producing nations. If any nation making bomb material is held responsible and the material can be traced back to it's origin then I'd say, yes, our nukes would have some power to stop this from happening. Still, that's a long list of "what if's", which is why I'm not so sure.
Absolutely it would be better! Like I said, it's a tentative position. If it was well understood by all that nuclear material could be identified and traced - and that the material producer is responsible for that material - then it could be a deterrent. I'd rather not have to face that future at all but the thing is, I think at some point we're going to have to. As posted elsewhere, I'm surprised we've kept the genie confined as long as we have. Eventually it's going to escape.
How often do you think Walt has fought against Islamists? How often do you think he has spent an entire year sleeping beside, eating with, fighting with, and living with practicers of Islam? We can go ahead and answer those questions with never. I have done that. I do know how these people think. I would wager Stephen Walt has probably never even been in a Mosque! I don't really care what some professor from Harvard that has come up with all of his foreign policy in a sanitized lab thinks. People like that reflect their own inner thoughts much more than an interpretation of the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that these people would want nothing more than to see an "infidel" dead, no matter the consequences to them.
You moved the goalposts on yourself bro. I am speaking of the same people. Iran and Islamic terrorists are one and the same. Don't think so? Why have we fought Iranian Republican Guard already in Iraq? Why are we being hit by Iranian made IED's? Your argument is the equivalent of thinking terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border are saying "We're not fighting the US. We're fighting the CIA." Its one and the same. Proof of Iran not caring about their existence? How about stamping "Made in Iran" on and IED! How about threatening a country (Israel) with nuclear genocide every chance you get and then working toward obtaining that weapon. This, despite Israel's repeated promises that they will attack them if they develop said weapons. How about their country being put under tough sanctions yet continuing to posture and antagonize every chance they get. American can keep underestimating the boldness of Islam all it wants. Last time we did that, we had two burning skyscrapers and our military's headquarters burning. They can only go up from there, never down.
LOL, I knew this would come down to, "But he didn't fight against them!" That's not an argument - it just means that you can't address his arguments from an intellectual level so you have to attack him on a personal level. No thanks. I'm not engaging in that. LOL. How about you read one of his books and actually examine him for yourself instead of making baseless assumptions? You probably won't though, you seem like you prefer to argue from ignorance.
The Iranian government is a state that is interested in survival. Even if some of its leaders in their hearts, want to blow up Israel, they want to survive which is why they want nuclear weapons. They know that the US and Israel won't invade them like the US did Iraq if it has nukes. If you understood the international system beyond "omg, Islam is scary!", then you would understand that.
I made one mention of fighting against them. All of that statement was about living with and beside practicers of Islam for over a year. You read what you wanted to read and then stopped. So, by your calculation, a person only needs to read a book to be an expert in a field? That is the true "LOL" of this whole debate. I would take a person's opinion that has been there, done that 10 times out of 10 over some idiot who thinks a piece of paper enables him to set policy and craft a logical theory. Your assumption that I have not read one of his books is also a true "LOL". I would suggest you get off Walts jock and try observing a different perspective besides one Harvard elite's pov.
Once again, a person who underestimates the ability of the human mind to devolve into a hate consumed state. The same was said of the Third Reich. You like to read, I suggest you read about that. No one wanted to believe that a human being, much less a group of human beings, would ever engage in the genocide and systematic eradication of a group of people simply because of their race. Reports came from intelligence sources all the time about "work" camps the Germans were running. No one wanted to believe it. We all know the outcome of that. No one wanted to believe that someone would actually run a plane into one of our buildings. Even after it happened, people didn't want to believe it. Still to this day, people don't believe it. Don't underestimate the capability of a human being, especially one driven by an ideology, to destroy its fellow man in the name of that ideology. Its not "omg Islam is scary". It's the fact that we've seen the ability of our fellow man to hate, we've underestimated it before, and we don't need to do it again. You can continue to live in your nice, safe, American bubble though bro. I won't hate you for it.
I don't think the U.S. government was ever worried about a soviet take over. They were worried and rightly so from soviet hard liners that a surprise nuclear attack before we could launch a significant amount of our own would destroy the U.S. and then the soviets would be able to basically run the rest of the planet. We also got into a pissing contest over Cuba that damn nearly ended it all.
Were you there at the time reading about it in headline news or is this some hindsight description you're using? Back then there was no Rapid Deployment. It was the Iran situation that pushed US into making it a reality. Carter did respond with a small strike force and the mission failed miserably. The other option would have been a full scale invasion, something no one wanted.
Dude, I brought up his arguments. You responded by calling him as a person into question rather than addressing the arguments. That confirms that you aren't confident in your ability to talk about this topic intellectually. If you're willing to discuss arguments and not people as I did with other posters who felt confident enough in themselves intellectually to do so without attacking Walt as a person, then we can do that.
But what does this have to do with anything? I certainly believe people are capable of genocide considering that people have...wait for it...committed genocide. I also believe people are capable of committing other atrocities because...wait for it...they have. My arguments have nothing to do with underestimating humanity. They have to do with the fact that Iran behaves like a rational state interested in its survival. Can you counter that point or do you only feel safe bringing up red herrings?
I'm not attacking Walt. I'm attacking you for thinking he is the end all, be all authority on foreign policy and nuclear weapons. You seem to have read one book and are insulted someone disagrees with you. If you would like to continue to debate the topic, I'm good with that. If you want to continue to play the game of weighing my experience in this portion of the world, with this type of person, and with the culture I speak of vs. your experience of reading a book while you were on the toilet, I'm done talking.
So you acknowledge that people are capable of these things. So, whats the disconnect then? If idealogues are capable of genocide and atrocities, why wouldn't they be capable of launching a nuclear weapon purely out of hate for another country and culture? Especially an openly hostile and ideological country such as Iran. Their treatment of the Baha'i minority, homosexuals, and women suggest your claim of them being a "rational" state is the true red herring in this debate.