Mon 9 Oct 2006
Last night saw the realization of what should have been obvious: your actions do not occur in a vacuum. That is to say, your actions (or inactions) have consequences for other parties, and if you try to anticipate those consequences you can influence the future behaviour of other parties.
For example: let’s say you name three countries as the “axis of evil”. Let’s suppose then you attack one of those three countries without provocation, and you’ve already used up any potential leverage from sanctions against the remaining two. These actions, whatever their merit may or may not be, cause a wholly predictable reaction — the remaining two countries will have to do whatever it takes to prevent you from invading them as well.
It is not shocking in the slightest that North Korea and Iran are developing a nuclear arsenal. In fact if you consider their perspective it is the only logical action they can take. So when President Alracistasshole of Iran claims to be pursuing a pacifist nuclear program, he’s either lying or insane for not doing the one thing that could prevent a future invasion.
This is not to justify the morality of North Korea’s nuclear program — fact is I’m scared out of my wits that such a crazy person has access to a nuke. Just that if world leaders had considered the logical consequences of how their actions would be received this problem could have been avoided. When you back someone into a corner you give them a reasonable way out, and when you take extreme action you give a very clear explanation of why you acted this way.
If your actions are predictable than the other parties can know what steps they can and cannot do to avoid negative consequences for themselves. But if your own actions are unpredictable, say by invading countries based on false evidence for short-term political gain, the other parties have to assume the worst
of you and prepare for such. This is not complicated, indeed it is quite obvious. Yet again and again we return to the same situation where truly unfortunate situations present themselves that did not have to be, in fact should never have been.



October 9th, 2006 at 1:46pm
I agree wholeheartedly.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:55pm
I’m not particularily worried about my own safety with a nuclear North Korea. They don’t have the range to get anywhere near me. I do worry about friends in Seoul and Tokyo, though.
There are other, more stable countries I’d prefer not have nukes, though. Israel, Pakistan, and India top my personal worry list.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:45pm
geek: what a coincidence, so do I!
shadow: it’s only an outside chance that it would be direclt problematic to my person. even IF they can launch this far it would be a crapshoot that they could land it anywhere near even if they were trying to. However, I don’t really like that it’s up to the whim of a madman and blind chance.
Regardless, the more sane threat is to Japan. And more directly it leads to increased nuclear proliferation, which will eventually lead to a disaster either of the unintentional or intentional variety. Either way it’s bad news for the world, which includes both of us.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:12am
It’ll make the next US election interesting, if the democrats can grow a spine and thow the WMD thing at the republicans.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:33am
ShadowNode: My bet is that “democrats are soft on terror” will trump any attempt at reasonable debate from either side. But I’m a dedicated cynic.
October 10th, 2006 at 7:55pm
You’re probably right, and the democrats will be too wimpy to stand up for themselves.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:52am
ShadowNode: no, see, the right wing meme of the day is that this proves Clinton’s foreign policy to be a failure. If he hadn’t paid the danegeld in the 90s, NKorea would never have done this.