Countries without liberal democracies pose more risk because their political decision-making may not be based on what we consider rationality and humanity.
Sadly, the political decision-making of liberal democracies is frequently not based on rationality or humanity, either. You and I probably agree that democracy is the best form of government so far devised; but in our lifetimes, democracies have engaged in needless wars of conquest; the toppling of democratically elected governments; torture, assassination, the flouting of our own laws, etc etc. When it comes to WMD, they may be somewhat safer in our hands, but they are certainly not safe in our hands. IMHO our advantages are more to do with stability, wealth, and (as you point out) electoral opinion, which can act as a brake on the worst excesses of government, than greater morality or sanity.
But I wonder if, precisely because of our system of government, we're the ones best placed to lead a process of global disarmament - to start it, to organise it, to keep it going.
(Say, Bashar Al-Assad and George W. Bush should get together and swap notes. But I digress.)
Generalities aside: am I right in thinking that a drop from 30,000 warheads to, say, 1,000 warheads would be the most amazing progress made on the issue in our lifetimes, if not ever? (What proportion of the human race could be killed, and what proportion of the planet laid waste, with just 1,000 bombs?)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 11:59 pm (UTC)Sadly, the political decision-making of liberal democracies is frequently not based on rationality or humanity, either. You and I probably agree that democracy is the best form of government so far devised; but in our lifetimes, democracies have engaged in needless wars of conquest; the toppling of democratically elected governments; torture, assassination, the flouting of our own laws, etc etc. When it comes to WMD, they may be somewhat safer in our hands, but they are certainly not safe in our hands. IMHO our advantages are more to do with stability, wealth, and (as you point out) electoral opinion, which can act as a brake on the worst excesses of government, than greater morality or sanity.
But I wonder if, precisely because of our system of government, we're the ones best placed to lead a process of global disarmament - to start it, to organise it, to keep it going.
(Say, Bashar Al-Assad and George W. Bush should get together and swap notes. But I digress.)
Generalities aside: am I right in thinking that a drop from 30,000 warheads to, say, 1,000 warheads would be the most amazing progress made on the issue in our lifetimes, if not ever? (What proportion of the human race could be killed, and what proportion of the planet laid waste, with just 1,000 bombs?)