oh, god.

Fox News reporting that Obama seeks "a world without nuclear weapons."

One of the great things about undeniable truths is that they scale so perfectly.  Like, "If you're reading this in English, you can thank nuclear weapons."

And you've no doubt heard the adage, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Tell me: when all the law-abiding nations have abandoned nuclear weapons, who, exactly, will have them?

And this is our president's vision.  I feel safer already.

Comments

[dAtkRaK]

So, so many logical fallacies in that argument. Let's start the hasty generalization that if we don't have nuclear weapons than some third world country with their eye on our destruction must. Then we can move on to the egregious false analogy presupposing that somehow the complicated politics of the nuclear arms race can be compared to simple gun ownership (I mean, really?). Appeal to probability, false dilemma... it goes on and on.

But truly, none of that really matters. At the end of the day, the largest fault with the entire line of reasoning is that MAD falls apart with the presence of just one madman at the wheel. And that includes our own country. So to you, I offer another question, "What happens when we no longer become a law-abiding nation?"

[John Galt]

Let's start the hasty generalization that if we don't have nuclear weapons than some third world country with their eye on our destruction must.

LOL, stupid lib strawman. Security is not about what must happen, it's about being prepared for what could happen. And Obama's proposal not only makes what could happen worse, it also makes it more likely to happen. Western disarmament actually creates incentives for other nations to acquire nukes.

And, as for your liberal moral equivalancy nonsense, have you never heard of the two-man rule, or checks and balances?

[dAtkRaK]

A strawman requires that I prop up an argument you didn't make. But that which you accuse me of is a necessary implied premise for your conclusion to be true. So no, I'm afraid not.

Unfortunately your defenses are only repetitions of the original logical fallacies. An appeal to probability is just that, an appeal for me to make a decision based on something that might happen. You're also, again, offering me a false dilemma. Either it's this or it's that, when, as I said before, the reality of nuclear politics is so much more complex than that.

Finally, ad hominem is not going to get your point across. You have no clue what my political leanings are. I could just as easily be a staunch conservative. I'm not arguing for or against nuclear proliferation, only pointing out the flaws in your logic.

But, to answer your closing question, I'll offer one of your own appeals to probability: the two-man rule only works when the US (or any of the other nuclear powers for that manner) maintains a system of checks and balances. The frighteningly nationalistic fervor with which Obama was elected president could just as easily put a despot in the White House. And then, there is no two man rule. And MAD (mutually assured destruction) doesn't hold back a madman.

Besides... as long as we're naming names, here, isn't the concept of preemptive defense a decidedly neoconservative (and, so, liberal in nature) point of view?

[dAtkRaK]

By the by, just to help you along, here, calling someone a liberal because they don't agree with you isn't the best way to engage in an intellectual debate. Surely you're willing to submit that the political spectrum is more complicated than black and white, conservative and liberal, democrat and GOP?

[John Galt]

A strawman requires that I prop up an argument you didn't make.

And I did not make the argument that "if we don't have nuclear weapons than some third world country with their eye on our destruction must," did I?

I simply acknowledge what I consider to be fact: that for every Western nation which gives up its nukes, it becomes more profitable for everyone else to acquire them. Not to destroy us, mind you, but simply to achieve whatever it is they might want that cannot be achieved peacefully. Do you deny that?

And if you envision the world as a place where international law prohibits nukes, then how would you describe the nations which might be tempted to own them anyway? It's proving impossible to keep them from obtaining them as it is, and now you want them to be the only ones who have them? Or are you hoping to hear Kim Jong Il declare sincerely that he's disarmed -- would you actually believe that? Do you also believe the Iranians are enriching uranium for peaceful energy purposes?

Also, a position can be liberal even if a person is not. And disarmament, along with disregard for the consequences of such action, is liberal in nature. "Better red than dead," isn't that what they used to say? Conservatism says "over my dead body" when it's right.

Whatever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"? I still believe in the message, so I see no reason to put the stick down. Do you not believe in the message, or is it that you simply don't believe in sticks?

And finally, preemptive regime change is arguably neocon and therefore liberal, but America has never limited its defensive posture to retaliating to aggressors' first strikes. It's been our position to strike first in response to all sorts of non-military aggression for decades.

[John Galt]

presupposing that somehow the complicated politics of the nuclear arms race can be compared to simple gun ownership (I mean, really?).

Yes, really.

There are three false premises in your argument.

The first is that North Korea is in a "nuclear arms race." North Koreans are practically living in the stone age now -- nobody threatens to nuke them, nobody wants to nuke them. North Korea does not seek the security of MAD; it seeks to extort the resources its failed political model cannot produce legitimately. The last fifteen years are proof that the mere threat of a nuclear North Korea is its most profitable national industry.

The second false premise is that the matter of North Korean nukes is not akin to simple gun ownership. It is. This is not a nation with a legitimate defense complex. It is a slave state held captive by a rogue regime of ambitious but nevertheless common criminals. They steal from their people, and they steal from the rest of the world (ever heard of the "super note"?). They seek weapons with a particular social stigma specifically because they add leverage to the extortion scheme.

That also goes toward your third false premise: that disarming North Korea is "complicated politics" -- it's not. It's more like a hostage situation, with the North Koreans inside assembling a bomb and now Obama on the outside telling the SWAT team to lay down its weapons.