If the drink makes more money than the movie, then we will not have to wait 500 years to say that we live in an idiocracy. Indeed, I believe that all elements of an idiocracy were on display at the recent ``Historic'' CNN/YouTube Republican Debate sponsored by ``Clean'' Coal. My commentary on the historic debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Osmnp_nbQ
Another Worm is
"this could be your twin!!
http://photobucket.com/recentups/image31.gif"
The link goes to uploadsend.com:
http://www4.uploadsend.com/file.php?filepath=1882
And this file is img31.pif
I used the "contact us" form to inform uploadsend that they were hosting a worm and haven't gotten word back. But, if uploadsend decides to cut off bandwidth to the worm, it might not spread as far.
Actually, the Cuban Missile crisis example works the other way: It is an example of deterrence failure. Kennedy's specific threat came too late, after Russians sent over their missiles
But even if you were right, deterrence will still inevitable fail for 5 Reasons. (That is, no good can come from US Nuclear Threats).
Scott Sagan, Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University "The Commitment Trap" _International Security_ 2000 p. 85-ff (http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article& issn=0162-2889&volume=24&issue=4&spage=85 )
What is relevant, however, is to think through how deterrence might fail despite the United States' having made a credible threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Although it is not possible to assign relative probabilities to such scenarios,
Yes, nuclear use is bad.
But, this policy encourages nuclear use, 4 ways.
1. Proliferation. Nuclear threats against non-nuclear states violates the NPT, and kills non-proliferation credibility. Proliferation leads to instability and nuclear use.
2. Commitment Trap. If a country makes WMD threats to the US, the US will be forced to respond with Nuclear Use, an unintended nuclear war, in order to preserve credibility in the eyes of allies and adversaries. Scott Sagan writes about this. (BTW, Sagan covers several reasons that deterrence will fail.)
3. Nuclearism. Rejecting No First Use engages in nuclearism, making nuclear use thinkable, and nuclear war more likely.
No, US policy is not shifting to resemble the French doctorine. French, Britain, and US nuclear doctorines regarding "No First Use" are all already the same, they oppose No First Use, afterall these countries all are part of NATO.
US has always rejected No First Use. US policy had been one of "calculated ambiguity," that is we would be ambiguious on nuclear questions as it would contribute to our security. Secretary of Defense William Cohen in November 1998: "We think the ambiguity involved in the issue of nuclear weapons contributes to our own security, keeping any potential adversary who might use either chemical or biological [weapons] unsure of what our response would be."
But there are four major problems with Calculated Ambiguity. (And this new doctorine eliminates the benefits of ambiguity, and just strengthens the case that we should not make nuclear threats.)
1. It violates The Non-Proliferation Treaty's (1995 extension conference) guarantee not to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear use. Violations of the NPT hurt credibility in persuading countries to forgo acquisition of nuclear weapons. And Proliferation is a Bad thing. (See Scott Sagan in _Nuclear Weapons: A debate renewed_)
2. Calculated Amiguity creates a "commitment trap." If a country does threaten WMD, or does use non-nuclear WMD, then the US will be expected to use nuclear weapons, starting a nuclear war. (See Scott Sagan "The Commitment Trap" 2000 [PDF] http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20284/sagan_is_spr 00.pdf [stanford.edu] )
3. Nuclear first use contributes to the tyranny of survival, whereby any imaginable evil can be committed in the name of survival. (See Daniel Callahan _Tyranny of Survival_ 1977)
4. Nuclear first use threats underly nuclearism, an ideology that makes nuclear use thinkable and more likely. (See Lifton & Falk _Indefensible Weapons_ 1982)
(Sorry that most of these resources are off-line, but the Sagan article should keep most entertained for a while.)
Here's the stance of the 5 major nuclear power states on the question of No First Use
China has No First Use
Russia had No First Use, but revoked it in recent years, due to a lack of reciprication.
Britain and France both oppose No First Use.
(NATO Members Canada and Germany support No First Use.)
US policy is stated above.
Also India has No First Use.
For more information on US First Use Policy, see Stansfield Turner's _Caging the Genie_ 1998. Turner was of the CIA, and advocates establishing a global No First Treaty, and believes that it would be feasible.
Having studied the question of No First Use literature for about a semester, I can say that the academic literature, especially critical academic literature, is slanted in favor of a US No First Use policy, even if not recipricated.
Slashdot Mirror
> ok we get it ur gay and fat Thank you for this feedback. I have deleted the video. In retrospect, it was not funny. -joewkelly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04
If the drink makes more money than the movie, then we will not have to wait 500 years to say that we live in an idiocracy. Indeed, I believe that all elements of an idiocracy were on display at the recent ``Historic'' CNN/YouTube Republican Debate sponsored by ``Clean'' Coal. My commentary on the historic debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Osmnp_nbQ
Another Worm is "this could be your twin!! http://photobucket.com/recentups/image31.gif" The link goes to uploadsend.com: http://www4.uploadsend.com/file.php?filepath=1882 And this file is img31.pif I used the "contact us" form to inform uploadsend that they were hosting a worm and haven't gotten word back. But, if uploadsend decides to cut off bandwidth to the worm, it might not spread as far.
But even if you were right, deterrence will still inevitable fail for 5 Reasons. (That is, no good can come from US Nuclear Threats). Scott Sagan, Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University "The Commitment Trap" _International Security_ 2000 p. 85-ff (http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article& issn=0162-2889&volume=24&issue=4&spage=85 )
What is relevant, however, is to think through how deterrence might fail despite the United States' having made a credible threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Although it is not possible to assign relative probabilities to such scenarios,
Yes, nuclear use is bad. But, this policy encourages nuclear use, 4 ways. 1. Proliferation. Nuclear threats against non-nuclear states violates the NPT, and kills non-proliferation credibility. Proliferation leads to instability and nuclear use. 2. Commitment Trap. If a country makes WMD threats to the US, the US will be forced to respond with Nuclear Use, an unintended nuclear war, in order to preserve credibility in the eyes of allies and adversaries. Scott Sagan writes about this. (BTW, Sagan covers several reasons that deterrence will fail.) 3. Nuclearism. Rejecting No First Use engages in nuclearism, making nuclear use thinkable, and nuclear war more likely.
No, US policy is not shifting to resemble the French doctorine. French, Britain, and US nuclear doctorines regarding "No First Use" are all already the same, they oppose No First Use, afterall these countries all are part of NATO. US has always rejected No First Use. US policy had been one of "calculated ambiguity," that is we would be ambiguious on nuclear questions as it would contribute to our security. Secretary of Defense William Cohen in November 1998: "We think the ambiguity involved in the issue of nuclear weapons contributes to our own security, keeping any potential adversary who might use either chemical or biological [weapons] unsure of what our response would be." But there are four major problems with Calculated Ambiguity. (And this new doctorine eliminates the benefits of ambiguity, and just strengthens the case that we should not make nuclear threats.) 1. It violates The Non-Proliferation Treaty's (1995 extension conference) guarantee not to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear use. Violations of the NPT hurt credibility in persuading countries to forgo acquisition of nuclear weapons. And Proliferation is a Bad thing. (See Scott Sagan in _Nuclear Weapons: A debate renewed_) 2. Calculated Amiguity creates a "commitment trap." If a country does threaten WMD, or does use non-nuclear WMD, then the US will be expected to use nuclear weapons, starting a nuclear war. (See Scott Sagan "The Commitment Trap" 2000 [PDF] http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20284/sagan_is_spr 00.pdf [stanford.edu] )
3. Nuclear first use contributes to the tyranny of survival, whereby any imaginable evil can be committed in the name of survival. (See Daniel Callahan _Tyranny of Survival_ 1977)
4. Nuclear first use threats underly nuclearism, an ideology that makes nuclear use thinkable and more likely. (See Lifton & Falk _Indefensible Weapons_ 1982)
(Sorry that most of these resources are off-line, but the Sagan article should keep most entertained for a while.)
Here's the stance of the 5 major nuclear power states on the question of No First Use
China has No First Use
Russia had No First Use, but revoked it in recent years, due to a lack of reciprication.
Britain and France both oppose No First Use.
(NATO Members Canada and Germany support No First Use.)
US policy is stated above.
Also India has No First Use.
For more information on US First Use Policy, see Stansfield Turner's _Caging the Genie_ 1998. Turner was of the CIA, and advocates establishing a global No First Treaty, and believes that it would be feasible.
Having studied the question of No First Use literature for about a semester, I can say that the academic literature, especially critical academic literature, is slanted in favor of a US No First Use policy, even if not recipricated.