Buttons!

Universal News or Politics?

> TheYell wrote:

> Yah a deterrent

Israel was believed to have a few nukes by 1966 so the 1967 and 1973 wars were with a "nuclear power"

And how well known was Israel's nuke status at that time?

Not to mention that there's even levels of deterrence within the broad classification of "nuclear power."  For example, a nation that has just a few nukes would still be in the process of formulating policies, procedures, etc., with regards to the use of nukes.  It takes time for any nation to clearly know its entire nuclear policy once a weapon is developed.  It may have been possible that, since Israel was an infant nuclear power at the time, an assault on them at the time would allow the Arab nations to destroy or capture the weapons before they were fully operational.  The fact that Israel had to keep their nuke program secret means that the likelihood of high security in the vicinity of the warheads may be lessened, increasing the probability that a surgical strike could have taken down Israel's nuclear capabilities.  In addition, the fact that the '73 attack was a surprise assault on Israel further shows that, early on, a nuclear weapon could incite wars in the form of preemptive strikes.

Not to mention that those numbers are pretty fuzzy anyway.  We can't be entirely sure of when Israel did have a nuclear program.

Holy crap!  And I haven't posted here in a couple days!
Mishe?

1: You're forgetting that public opinion also acts as a restraining option against certain powers, Israel included.

Let's consider both your scenarios: the USSR and Chinese atrocities.  Neither of these nations had anything even remotely resembling a democratic society.  Therefore, public opinion serves as nothing more than a gauge of when the government should refill the gas on the tanks they're using to run over demonstrators.

Israel, however, is democratically elected.  If the government does something atrocious, the people are likely to rise up against that leader.  This can be empirically seen in the US with Guantanamo Bay (I'm not arguing whether the camp is moral or immoral.  Rather, I'm simply using this to point out that if people believe an action by a democratic government is immoral, the people will call for reform).

In addition, by merit of being a democratic nation, the tolerance level for shit the government can do is greatly reduced.  Imagine if Kim Jong Il set up a Guantanamo Bay prison camp.  How likely do you think the people are to demand the removal of the leader for crimes committed against potential foreign enemies, especially when the only way to remove the leader is through an uprising of one form or another?

Now, from reading everything above, I'm a little lost at where I was headed with the argument, so let me recap. 

Yes, nuclear weapons do empower nations to commit atrocities.  However, if a nuclear nation is also democratic, that effect is miniscule at best.  Compare that with the benefit of deterrence through mutually assured destruction.

2: Terrorism and economics both act as another method of the same abuse-propagating power that nuclear weapons do.  Iran is a perfect example of this:
Right now, Iran is a key market in oil production.  If anyone screws with Iran, the oil flow is threatened, meaning everyone else is forced to either back off or see a really big screw-up in their economies.  Since nobody can mess with them, Iran can do whatever the hell it wants.
Same goes for terrorism.  If you threaten Iran, Iran can organize a covert terror attack against you on the cheap, and you have the burden of proof in showing that Iran was responsible before you can do anything about it.  Even after you prove that Iran was directly responsible, you have to rally people behind it, and pubicize the evidence without revealing national security secrets.

The possession of nuclear weapons serves as a counter-deterrence against Iran's own asymmetrical warfare potential, essentially.

Go attack people in some fake galaxy.  We're busy. 

Interested in my fam?    (No, that wasn't meant as an insult)

> Freelancer wrote:

> 1- By make sure that there is also a private sector

Is that even feasible within the current US medical system, considering the number of doctors in the nation?

> 2- It does in fact reduces the cost (USA is one of the most countrys spending money per capita in health care, although it does not have an universal health care)

I'll leave this to Justinian, because, frankly, I dunno the answer on it. 

> 3- If you have the right laws and competiton between hospitals doctors etc there is no poor service

See #1.

> 4- People are

Irrelevant.  Governments may represent the people, but their actions become more removed from the people with each level of beaurocracy constructed.  The less easily an individual outside the government can get another individual removed from office, the less the government itself becomes like the people.

What?  I can't rely on you to end this stupid conversation?

If you want to do something right, you've gotta do it yourself!  I want one of these planes for Christmas!

But if you destroy the space-time continuum, you wouldn't get your plane because the past would be destroyed as well.  The plane wouldn't have been built in the first place.

How the hell would Santa stick that in his sleigh?

I'm allergic to work.  It creates an undue amount of stress.  Can I be subsidized for watching TV?