Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcanus | Hacker News Reader

And they are correct. We encouraged quddafi to give up his program, lifted sanctions, and then pushed him into a corner at the first opportunity. He had no viable way to abdicate without being tried for war crimes.

The same policy has occurred in Syria. We need to encourage dictators to leave office, not indicate that they will be tried and imprisoned.

This isn't a humanitarian argument, it is game theory. But it will save lives and reduce conflicts. The outcome is superior. I'll take a horrible person escaping justice over thousands of human casualties any day.

View on HN

> We need to encourage dictators to leave office

Easier said than done. At the core of a Dictator's dictatorship is sheer brutality and unimaginable cruelty. They rule using Fear.

What dictator in recent history (last 100 years) has willingly stepped down?

Juan Carlos I of Spain. (Not exactly the same, but he could have had absolute power and chose to give that up)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democr...

> Prince Juan Carlos initially remained in the background during public appearances and seemed ready to follow in Franco's footsteps. Once in power as King of Spain, however, he facilitated the development of a "constitutional monarchy".

Doesn't sound like he gave it up, just re-branded it to keep with the times. Like my father used to say "Death alone can remove them."

Lots of others had plans to step down (aka move out, when a new dictatory/ the military moves in) - as shown by very rich ex-dictators living well all around the world.

alternatively we should kill Kim now, then publicly inform the world that anyone threatening the us with nukes is subject to the same. Nk is not going to launch on the us today and any surviving generals are going to have to find a new leader willing to go with the plan.

Then get Seoul carpet-bombed by the artillery close to the border.

that prospect didn't stop the previous korean war.

THe US didn't start the previous Korean war.

Not if we nuke it.

The US regime has had nuclear missiles trained on a non-nuclear North Korea for decades, and has openly and seriously threatened to drop dozens of nuclear bombs at once on the populace and salt the land afterward with radioactive cobalt to prevent future human life.[1] Yes, how dare they bluster back, you'd better kill them for the insolence as an example to others.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/09/texts-of-accounts-by-lucas...

NK does not respect the freedom and natural rights of its citizens, so we shouldn't respect the rights of that country.

I always say, just like revolvers are equalizers for humans, nukes are equalizers for countries. I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing.

Do you also always wear a suicide vest in case anyone wants fight you?

In cease "someone" overpowers you and threatens to kill you with knife up in the ass, then yes - you better wear suicide vest.

Nice strawman, but in reality you can punch back at someone who wants to fight or run away. When all you have is one planet and there exists a few cunning and belligerent actors with immense resources and oversized military budgets, you don't have the same options when you're cornered.

I only bring a metaphorical suicide vest when I am being honest on hackernews. I have spectacularly unpopular opinions.

Agreed. Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink:

1. Israel threatened to use them in the opening days of 1973 war: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-m...

2. Pakistan threatened to use them in 1986-87 during operation brasstacks: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-...

3. North Korea today.

>Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink

And, of course, the one time it actually happened.

you mean couple times.

and they didn't forget. they just internalize what that supposed rational actor would count on: that by wining, you get to be the good guy in history's eye.

I'm counting both as the result of a single "decision by a rational actor."

If a rational actor sees no way out but to use a nuke, then there is a much larger irrational actor that is tyrannizing the world and needs to be destroyed. And since the actor is rational, it will have carefully considered the choice and have come to the conclusion that the loss of life was worth it, for an end of tyranny.

Both actors could be perfectly rational and fighting over a scarce resource such as fresh water.

oh god. you must have never heard the words INDIA, or PAKISTAN, OR BROKEN ARROW, or CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, or FIRST STRIKE....

This is perhaps the most inanely dumb thing I've ever read. I am sorry. I need to remove my veneer of politeness. It will probably be fine with North Korea...but NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION is unquestionably, unquestionably bad. The chance for irrational behavior or mistakes or bad actors obtaining weapons or nation states losing control of events....

good god man. go douse your face with cold water. you need to get your head on right.

There is a difference between something being rational in the context of one nation's foreign policy...and "GOOD"

Sure, the US and Russia should go first in ridding themselves of nuclear weapons since they seem to have the most. Then we can really talk about non-nuclear proliferation. There's really no reason anyone should have these immensely dangerous weapons, other than for MAD. But should these nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth states push others around while largely keeping their own nukes, what kind of message does that send?

the US and Russia will never disarm fully. never. don't even bother discussing it. Russia will never disarm because without nukes they believe they could be crushed at will by the conventional weapons of the west. they feel encircled by NATO. The united states will never disarm fully because russia will never disarm. the best we can hope for is reductions in forces and greater transparency and communication to reduce the risk of misinterpreting the other's intentions or some terrible accident. The reason states have nuclear weapons is deterrence (aka MAD) which is quite a compelling reason... Honestly I don't really think you and I have any disagreement? It is hard to convince people to disarm when they have seen the consequences thereof- see Iraq, see Libya, see Ukraine. As for nuclear armed to the teeth states pushing people around, this is because the United States and Russia have large conventional militaries. The nuclear option is more a constraint on the aggression of others- since any offensive use of nuclear weapons could induce a massive chain reaction. Nuclear armed-to-the teeth states push others around (by this I assume you mean the US and Russia) because they have the conventional means.

"I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing."

Except, you know, when we accidentally blow up the entire world:

Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Thank you Vasili Arkhipov, the man who stopped nuclear war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Reply on news.ycombinator.com