(no subject)
I'm close to finished with a book I'm reading for class, entitled, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons". Two authors present the cases for and against the proliferation of nukes (i.e. - should the US "allow" or encourage states like India, Pakistan, or N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons).
One author (Waltz) argues that if everyone has enough nukes to destroy their immediate enemies, everyone will be too scared to attack each other. The other (Sagan) believes that human beings, generally, are not that rational, and the more nukes, the greater the likelihood we'll all end up radioactive and crispy.
After nearly 190 pages, I have arrived at the following summary: Watch the scene in "The Princess Bride" where Wesley and The Sicilian have their battle of wits with the poisoned wine. The Sicilian's babble represents the argument of Waltz (who argues that more nukes worldwide are better). When the Sicilian dies, that's Sagan's reasoning at work - nukes will inevitably result in someone, or everyone, being dead.
It works like this:
So take that scene. Replace Wesley and the Sicilian with India and Pakistan (both of whom now have nukes). Replace the wine with nuclear weapons. Replace Princess Buttercup with the disputed Kashmir region.
India/Wesley and Pakistan/The Sicilian both want Kashmir/Princess Buttercup. The only way to acquire the object of dispute is to launch a nuclear attack/drink the wine. Pakistan/The Sicilian has no way, really, of knowing what the result of launching an attack/drinking the wine will be. Either Pakistan/The Sicilian will be the victim of a retaliatory attack/the poison by India/Wesley, or the attack will be successful/the wine he chooses will be unpoisoned, leaving India/Wesley a nuclear wasteland/poisoned to death, allowing Pakistan/The Sicilian free to claim Kashmir/Princess Buttercup. Given this uncertainty, they are forced into a stalemate. This is where Waltz, who thinks more nukes make the world safer, stops. But Sagan goes on:
During the standoff Pakistan/The Sicilian is hoping for a lapse in India's/Wesley's vigilance allowing him to launch a surprise attack/switch the wine or, possibly, allowing conventional military forces/Andre the Giant to sneak up on India/Wesley and somehow remove India/Wesley's ability to use nuclear weapons/whack Wesley on the head with a great big rock. When Pakistan/The Sicilian gets blowed up/dies of poison, it is because he had no way of realizing that India/Wesley is so determined to achieve the objective (Kashmir/Buttercup) that he was willing to accept the damage of a nuclear attack/the probably risky process of slowly immunizing himself to the poison. India/Wesley, knowing that he was willing to accept this inevitable damage, is the one who forced Pakistan/The Sicilian into the situation to begin with because ultimately, having Kashmir/Princess Buttercup is worth the certain damge of nuclear war/poisoning himself, with the risk of potentially being utterly destroyed/not immunized enough worth the potential gain.
There you go. Applied Political Science.
love,
-Cody
One author (Waltz) argues that if everyone has enough nukes to destroy their immediate enemies, everyone will be too scared to attack each other. The other (Sagan) believes that human beings, generally, are not that rational, and the more nukes, the greater the likelihood we'll all end up radioactive and crispy.
After nearly 190 pages, I have arrived at the following summary: Watch the scene in "The Princess Bride" where Wesley and The Sicilian have their battle of wits with the poisoned wine. The Sicilian's babble represents the argument of Waltz (who argues that more nukes worldwide are better). When the Sicilian dies, that's Sagan's reasoning at work - nukes will inevitably result in someone, or everyone, being dead.
It works like this:
So take that scene. Replace Wesley and the Sicilian with India and Pakistan (both of whom now have nukes). Replace the wine with nuclear weapons. Replace Princess Buttercup with the disputed Kashmir region.
India/Wesley and Pakistan/The Sicilian both want Kashmir/Princess Buttercup. The only way to acquire the object of dispute is to launch a nuclear attack/drink the wine. Pakistan/The Sicilian has no way, really, of knowing what the result of launching an attack/drinking the wine will be. Either Pakistan/The Sicilian will be the victim of a retaliatory attack/the poison by India/Wesley, or the attack will be successful/the wine he chooses will be unpoisoned, leaving India/Wesley a nuclear wasteland/poisoned to death, allowing Pakistan/The Sicilian free to claim Kashmir/Princess Buttercup. Given this uncertainty, they are forced into a stalemate. This is where Waltz, who thinks more nukes make the world safer, stops. But Sagan goes on:
During the standoff Pakistan/The Sicilian is hoping for a lapse in India's/Wesley's vigilance allowing him to launch a surprise attack/switch the wine or, possibly, allowing conventional military forces/Andre the Giant to sneak up on India/Wesley and somehow remove India/Wesley's ability to use nuclear weapons/whack Wesley on the head with a great big rock. When Pakistan/The Sicilian gets blowed up/dies of poison, it is because he had no way of realizing that India/Wesley is so determined to achieve the objective (Kashmir/Buttercup) that he was willing to accept the damage of a nuclear attack/the probably risky process of slowly immunizing himself to the poison. India/Wesley, knowing that he was willing to accept this inevitable damage, is the one who forced Pakistan/The Sicilian into the situation to begin with because ultimately, having Kashmir/Princess Buttercup is worth the certain damge of nuclear war/poisoning himself, with the risk of potentially being utterly destroyed/not immunized enough worth the potential gain.
There you go. Applied Political Science.
love,
-Cody