A Three Sentence Description of Solid Foreign Security Policy: AKA “How Non Interventionism Increases Security”
By Daniel Miessler on June 6th, 2008: Tagged as America | Politics | Security
We become more secure as a country by minding our own business and being kind to others. This way 95% of the world loves us. Then, when the 5% does pose a threat we are not only free to go and obliterate them, but we do so to a standing ovation.
--
The word “obliterate” is problematic and (depending on the threat) is unlikely to earn anyone a standing ovation.
Comment by Carl M — 6/7/2008 @ 11:26 am
I disagree. I think obliterate is the appropriate word when people are researching how to kill millions of people via biological or chemical warfare, for God, so that they can attain virgins.
The same goes for any doomsday group that wants to wipe out people on a mass scale — especially when they can’t possibly know the extent of the damage that they might do.
You don’t mess with groups like this. If someone is trying to create a flu pandemic that will make the 1918 bout look like an average season, it’s time to use the word obliterate.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 6/7/2008 @ 12:46 pm
Daniel,
You broke the hypothetical world into two groups: 95% love us, 5% threaten us. Then you use the word obliterate for that 5%. My point is that not every threat requires obliteration. This is the sort of thinking that gets people (and countries) into trouble.
It just sounds too much like: “Either you love us or we are free to obliterate you.” In fact, it is logically equivalent to this statement.
Comment by Carl M — 6/7/2008 @ 1:03 pm
Ah, very true. Good point.
So, 60% love us. 20% like us ok. 10% we quarrel with (diplomatically). 5% we have harsh words with but don’t go to war with. 5% are not approachable and are a danger to the world.
But those are big numbers for the sake of argument. In reality, the final number of unapproachables is some small percentage of 1%.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 6/7/2008 @ 1:15 pm