Why does Britain need to invest in a new generation of nuclear weapons? There is no conceivable circumstance in which these weapons will ever be used, even in self-defence.
The old argument was that the possessors of nuclear weaponry would use their power wisely to deter other nations from developing such weapons. This has clearly failed. There is no credible threat of ever using nuclear weapons against Iran or North Korea, let alone any non-state terrorist organization; the fact of proliferation is therefore completely uninfluenced by the fact that the Western powers have some expensive and untested nuclear warheads corroding in a bunker somewhere.
The supporters of multi-lateral disarmament say that it would be an excellent thing if everyone were to abandon nuclear weapons at the same time. But they don't believe that Britain's taking a unilateral move away from the possession of nuclear weapons will persuade any other country to disarm. Therefore we must continue to develop ever more advanced nuclear weapons. I heard the Foreign Secretary David Miliband putting this argument on the BBC News this evening.
Unilateral disarmament is traditionally associated with liberal philosophers and left-wing Christians - from Bertrand Russell to Bruce Kent. However, an increasing number of military top brass are openly questioning the acquisition of nuclear weapons that can never be used. [Generals in 'scrap Trident' call BBC News 16 January 2009. General calls for Trident rethink, BBC News 29 January 2009]
In the past, some supporters of unilateral disarmament have put forward the view that we don't have to wait for others to disarm, we can set a moral example. Once we lay down our arms, other countries will be shamed into doing the same.
Supporters of multilateral disarmament believe this is unlikely, and perhaps they are right. But they go on to draw a fallacious conclusion - that because our abandoning the bomb would have no effect on other countries, therefore there is no purpose in our abandoning the bomb, therefore we should keep it.
In other words, they are still hoping to use the bomb - not as a way of killing millions of innocent citizens but as a bargaining chip in some game of international politics. Keeping the bomb allows us a seat at a diplomatic table at which no meaningful agreement is ever going to be reached. What a wonderful way of spending $20bn of taxpayers' money.
See also
Jeremy Bernstein, Is Nuclear Deterrence Obsolete? (NYR Blogs, April 2010)
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Back into the Fold
It is a time for reconciliation and return. Old political rivals welcomed back (Hillary Clinton, Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke). And the Vatican has restored relations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a traditionalist Catholic organization, founded in 1970 by the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Most controversially, the Vatican is cancelling the excommunication of four SSPX bishops, including Holocaust denier Richard Williamson.
I don't know whether this is bad luck or bad judgement on the part of the Holy Father, but Bishop Williamson appeared this week on Swedish television, denying the existence of the gas chambers. So much for Jewish-Catholic relations then.
The Holy Father appears to have a precise legalistic mind, in which there is no logical connection between the original reasons for Bishop Williamson's excommunication and his extreme views on the second world war. If the excommunication no longer serves a valid purpose, it must be cancelled; you cannot keep someone in a state of mortal peril just because you disagree with, or even disapprove of, his opinions.
Many will be offended by the pardon for Bishop Williamson and his SSPX friends, interpreting it as a further sign of an anti-Semitic turn at the Vatican. However, His Holiness doesn't seem to worry much about offending people.
Meanwhile, the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), an organization that split from SSPX in 1983, holds that the papal seat is currently vacant ("sedevacantism"), as all the popes since 1958 (or perhaps 1963) are excessively modernist and therefore heretical. Perhaps Benedict XVI is trying to win their approval and acceptance.
I don't know whether this is bad luck or bad judgement on the part of the Holy Father, but Bishop Williamson appeared this week on Swedish television, denying the existence of the gas chambers. So much for Jewish-Catholic relations then.
The Holy Father appears to have a precise legalistic mind, in which there is no logical connection between the original reasons for Bishop Williamson's excommunication and his extreme views on the second world war. If the excommunication no longer serves a valid purpose, it must be cancelled; you cannot keep someone in a state of mortal peril just because you disagree with, or even disapprove of, his opinions.
Many will be offended by the pardon for Bishop Williamson and his SSPX friends, interpreting it as a further sign of an anti-Semitic turn at the Vatican. However, His Holiness doesn't seem to worry much about offending people.
Meanwhile, the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), an organization that split from SSPX in 1983, holds that the papal seat is currently vacant ("sedevacantism"), as all the popes since 1958 (or perhaps 1963) are excessively modernist and therefore heretical. Perhaps Benedict XVI is trying to win their approval and acceptance.
Sources
- Pope 'to lift SSPX excommunications' just as Bishop Williamson denies Nazi gas chambers (Telegraph, 22 January 2009)
- Pope could welcome Holocaust denier back into the fold (Times Online, 23 January 2009)
- Bishop faces probe for Holocaust outburst (Independent Online South Africa, 23 January 2009)
- Pope move ignites Holocaust row(BBC News, 24 January 2009)
- Bishop Richard Williamson, Holocaust Denier, Reinstated By Pope (Huffington Post, 24 January 2009)
- Pope lifts SSPX excommunications (Ruth Gledhill, 24 January 2009)
- Benedict and the SSPX: the backlash begins (Telegraph, 22 January 2009)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Relationships built on self-interest
A number of bloggers have reproduced a photograph of Barack Obama at a blackboard, teaching something called Power Analysis, with a diagram captioned "Relationships built on self-interest". This is supposedly based on the work of Saul Alinsky.
- BAGnewsNotes: Obama As Machiavelli
- JustOneMinute: The Time To Lead Is Later
- Politics & Prosperity: Obama and the Saul Alinsky Method
- The Union News: How Obama organized America: Alinsky-style
- The American Prospect: Big Picture Power
Before the election, bloggers strived to interpret this connection. Did it mean Obama was a closet radical, or a crafty pragmatist? If Alinsky was a socialist, did this mean Obama was also a socialist? If Alinsky was an amoral atheist, was Obama also?
Following the election, Obama's appointments were closely scrutinized for hints of policy. Was this person too close to Israel? Was that person too close to the banks?
But for most of us, watching Obama's opening moves is like watching a grandmaster playing chess. We don't yet know why he is putting a bishop here, or a castle there, but we have every reason to believe he has a pretty well-worked-out plan.
Hillary Clinton is also familiar with the work of Saul Alinsky, having written a student thesis on him [MSNBC, 9 May 2007]. Many sections of the US media like to portray the Clintons as manipulative and power-hungry, and this portrayal perhaps caused many Obama followers to fear that Clinton would somehow steal the nomination by devious means.
Following the nomination, some people (including Joe Biden, apparently) thought that Clinton ought to be the Vice President. But after eight years of cynical realpolitik in that post, it was perhaps time for an honest and simple Vice President.
In which role, then, does President Obama really need to deploy someone who is as clever and pragmatic as himself, who has read and understood Alinsky, and who can operate international realpolitik as a master? Step forward Secretary of State Hillary Rodman Clinton. As the popular song goes: I Wonder Who's Kissinger Now?
First Family
Like several of his predecessors (Johnson, Nixon, George W Bush), President Obama has two daughters.
Kennedy and Carter had interesting brothers; Ford, Reagan and Clinton had interesting wives. Who was the last president with a son? Oh I remember, it was George HW Bush.
Kennedy and Carter had interesting brothers; Ford, Reagan and Clinton had interesting wives. Who was the last president with a son? Oh I remember, it was George HW Bush.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Wrong Side of History
In his inaugural speech yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke the following words: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history." [President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address]
Anyone who thought those words were directed at the Cubans or the Iranians or the Filipinos or Israel or Jimmy Carter or Microsoft would have been alerted to their true target by the swift censorship of the Chinese authorities, which excised these words from the Chinese translation (along with some unfavourable references to communism and blaming the West) [BBC News 21 January 2009].
As BBC Journalist James Reynolds reminds us, President Bill Clinton used similar words before making a "friendship" visit to Beijing in 1998. "When it comes to human rights and religious freedom, China remains on the wrong side of history" [CNN, June 1998]. And in his speech at Beijing University [BBC News, 29 June 1998] he asked his hosts "How do we work together to be on the right side of history together?" Apparently Clinton's views on history were shared by disgraced former Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang [New York Times, 25 June 1998] See also Jonathan Fenby [Guardian, March 2008]
Does history have a right and wrong side at all? Is history some kind of bully, that we have to stay on the right side of or get beaten up? Is there an inevitable march of progress and freedom, or is that just what Butterfield called The Whig Interpretation of History? (See commentary by Dr John Warren). Butterfield charged earlier historians who believed naively in such progress, especially Macaulay, with "fatuous and complacent optimism". Carl Becker levelled similar charges against Jefferson (see David Noble, Historians Against History, p 91).
Pray Obama does not succumb to fatuous and complacent optimism.
Anyone who thought those words were directed at the Cubans or the Iranians or the Filipinos or Israel or Jimmy Carter or Microsoft would have been alerted to their true target by the swift censorship of the Chinese authorities, which excised these words from the Chinese translation (along with some unfavourable references to communism and blaming the West) [BBC News 21 January 2009].
As BBC Journalist James Reynolds reminds us, President Bill Clinton used similar words before making a "friendship" visit to Beijing in 1998. "When it comes to human rights and religious freedom, China remains on the wrong side of history" [CNN, June 1998]. And in his speech at Beijing University [BBC News, 29 June 1998] he asked his hosts "How do we work together to be on the right side of history together?" Apparently Clinton's views on history were shared by disgraced former Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang [New York Times, 25 June 1998] See also Jonathan Fenby [Guardian, March 2008]
Does history have a right and wrong side at all? Is history some kind of bully, that we have to stay on the right side of or get beaten up? Is there an inevitable march of progress and freedom, or is that just what Butterfield called The Whig Interpretation of History? (See commentary by Dr John Warren). Butterfield charged earlier historians who believed naively in such progress, especially Macaulay, with "fatuous and complacent optimism". Carl Becker levelled similar charges against Jefferson (see David Noble, Historians Against History, p 91).
Pray Obama does not succumb to fatuous and complacent optimism.
Female Pleasure 3
A controversial study claims that a woman finds lovemaking more fulfilling if her partner is wealthy. Wealthy men give women more orgasms (The Times, 18th January 2009) Why rich men are better in bed: Women have more orgasms with wealthy partners, study finds (Daily Mail, 20th January 2009).
Another bit of pseudo-science from the evolutionary biology brigade.
The study is based on a survey of some 1500 Chinese women, and appears to show some statistical correlation between prosperity and pleasure. Here are some of the possible explanations discussed by the Daily Mail, a paper popular with women who have (or would like to have) wealthy partners.
Note that the Daily Mail mostly prints explanations based on female choice, because this flatters its female readership, and overlooks explanations based on male choice - for example, rich men choose randy girlfriends and dump them if they stop being randy. I'm not saying that this explanation is any better than the ones the Daily Mail prints, I'm just saying that the Daily Mail is being selective about the rubbish they print.
In contrast, The Times gives wealthy men the credit for "giving" women more, and interprets Pollet's findings as "suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers". Obviously pandering for a male readership then.
Finally, in the comments to the Daily Mail article we can find a more down-to-earth explanation. "There is nothing like money worries to dampen your sex drive." (I think there is something in one of George Orwell's early novels about this effect, but I can't seem to find it.)
Another bit of pseudo-science from the evolutionary biology brigade.
The study is based on a survey of some 1500 Chinese women, and appears to show some statistical correlation between prosperity and pleasure. Here are some of the possible explanations discussed by the Daily Mail, a paper popular with women who have (or would like to have) wealthy partners.
- Women who have frequent orgasms tend to overestimate their partner's income
- Women with 'high powered' partners exaggerate how much they enjoy sex
- Women who are highly susceptible to orgasms select partners who are wealthy
- More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms
Note that the Daily Mail mostly prints explanations based on female choice, because this flatters its female readership, and overlooks explanations based on male choice - for example, rich men choose randy girlfriends and dump them if they stop being randy. I'm not saying that this explanation is any better than the ones the Daily Mail prints, I'm just saying that the Daily Mail is being selective about the rubbish they print.
In contrast, The Times gives wealthy men the credit for "giving" women more, and interprets Pollet's findings as "suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers". Obviously pandering for a male readership then.
Finally, in the comments to the Daily Mail article we can find a more down-to-earth explanation. "There is nothing like money worries to dampen your sex drive." (I think there is something in one of George Orwell's early novels about this effect, but I can't seem to find it.)
Update
Just found an excellent blog called Lust in Paradise, making similar points to mine. It concludes as follows.
"The point is that studies like this one are conducted in a socio-economic context that simply did not exist in prehistory, when all this evolving supposedly took place. Yet the central conceit of mainstream evolutionary psychology is that these findings reflect some eternal truths about men, women, and the allocation of resources. The fact that there's a gaping hole in the center of their narrative doesn't stop them telling us what female orgasms are saying though..."
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Purpose of the Cross
A large sculpture of Christ on the cross has been removed from outside a church in West Sussex after its vicar said it was "scaring young children". The Reverend Ewen Souter said the 10ft crucifix was "a horrifying depiction of pain and suffering". [Daily Telegraph, 6 January 2009, BBC News, 7 January 2009]
Actually, I thought that was the whole point of the crucifix - to serve as a permanent reminder of the suffering of Jesus on the cross. If Christians prefer an abstract cross rather than a graphic rendering of a man in agony, then perhaps they should convert to a religion that avoids all graven images of God and prefers geometric figures instead.
The sculpture was the work of Edward Bainbridge Copnall, who had lived locally. Some of the debate has focused on the aesthetic quality of the sculpture, but that's a problematic notion as well. Not all religious art can be world-class, can it, and not every church can be lucky enough to have pieces by famous artists. Meanwhile, Copnall is better-known than he was last week, and pilgrims will doubtless be planning an extra stop at Horsham Museum (where the sculpture now resides) on their way to Canterbury.
See also comments by Damian Thompson and George Pitcher.
Actually, I thought that was the whole point of the crucifix - to serve as a permanent reminder of the suffering of Jesus on the cross. If Christians prefer an abstract cross rather than a graphic rendering of a man in agony, then perhaps they should convert to a religion that avoids all graven images of God and prefers geometric figures instead.
The sculpture was the work of Edward Bainbridge Copnall, who had lived locally. Some of the debate has focused on the aesthetic quality of the sculpture, but that's a problematic notion as well. Not all religious art can be world-class, can it, and not every church can be lucky enough to have pieces by famous artists. Meanwhile, Copnall is better-known than he was last week, and pilgrims will doubtless be planning an extra stop at Horsham Museum (where the sculpture now resides) on their way to Canterbury.
See also comments by Damian Thompson and George Pitcher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)