Tiananmen Square, June 1989
Totalitarian regimes simply cannot survive an information age. Totten has much more. The White House is playing it cool for the time-being, but I sure hope they have an ace up their sleeve...
14 June 2009
Hope and Change
Tiananmen Square, June 1989Totalitarian regimes simply cannot survive an information age. Totten has much more. The White House is playing it cool for the time-being, but I sure hope they have an ace up their sleeve...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
See what the others have said:
10 comments:
If we hadn't gotten tied up in that catastrophe known as Iraq, we might have enough street cred left to where Iran wouldn't have tried something that ridiculous. they know as well as we do; "What can we do about it"?
North Korea knows the same thing, though we could nuke them out of existense since they are prattling on about nukes now.
Anon,
If we "nuke North Korea out of existence," we do the same to ourselves. So it's really not a very credible threat nor refuge.
It's like 89-y.o. Mr. Marshall marrying 26 y.o. Anna Nicole Smith -- you've got a whole lot of something, but you can't do much with it.
Unlike the N. Korea the two of you talk about, China and Iran are more open to the internet world than N. Korea. When my girlfriend was in China it was difficult but not impossible for her to get news from the outside world.
Now, compare that to the Twitter fed protests in Iran. Until just recently Iran didn't curb access to the outside world via the internet.
Not to say that google hasn't allowed censorship via their search engine, but I remember seeing a sat photo of N. Korea at night. The entire north was black, while the S. Korean portion of the peninsula was brilliant.
Big differences between Iran/China when compared to N. Korea.
I agree, Subrookie, North Korea is on a plane of its own when it comes to oppression.
Lisa, unless someone else comes to NK's aide, they don't have near the range to hit us with nukes. But, just to be sure that someone didn't come back at us, I'm sure we'd use conventional weapons. Besides, I'm pretty sure the MOAB is bigger than NK's nuke.
I don't think we should do anything about Iran. That is a problem for the Iranians to deal with. Until they do something hostile towards the US, let them be, just watch them closely.
olgreydog,
Right about NK's range. Not to justify a thing, but it seems these countries with their nukes and swagger and bravado are like the late great Saddam -- they don't want to be seen as weenies. Who would?
It's not our job to cut 'em down to size. You're absolutely right about Iran. We've had quite enough adventuring; there is nothing good to be gained by intervention -- and on what basis?
One must ask why these nations mayn't have their own nuclear warheads? Every does. Invite them into the nuclear community and tell them the rules of being good neighbors.
The U.S. should only aggress when aggressed upon (or our allies are).
Lisa,
NO. I vote for NOT allowing NK or Iran to have nuclear weapons. You need to read more history about NK.
Anon,
Yeah, but what right does the U.S. have to tell anyone what they may or may not do? Our business is the business of the U.S.
Are we wielding our military might with moral authority at the moment?
Isaiah 38:1: "Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live."
Lisa,
You assume that Iran and NK will abide by the rules of having nukes. That is a lofty assumption. Not everyone has nukes. Only three countries even have the triad. The reason that they have only been used once is because, at the time, only one country had them. When other people have them, there is this little thing called deterrence. It works on rational, legitimate governments. It does not work against radical regimes who do not care if they, or their people for that matter, die, as long as the enemy dies. This is NK, Iran, would have been Iraq, ect. What is the purpose of obtaining them if they do not already have them? We will keep Israel from nuking Iran and China/Russia will keep us from nuking NK, so what is the point? There are enough checks and balances right now to keep things stable. You cannot take a purely isolationist approach in foreign policy. It will get you no where fast.
olgreydog,
Oh, I am not an isolationist. The only nation I believe unstable enough to possibly detonate a nuke would be Pakistan.
Pls. see this art. in the WaPo today on the matter of nuke deterrence here (I don't know how to embed a link):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061503240.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Post a Comment