nerdgirl

You’re confusing the internal basis of sovereignty under the Westphalian system with the ability to project power internationally and political economics. War is an inter-state phenomenon. But your simplified notional Japan scenario does illustrate validation of what started this dialogue – “St Carl” von Clausewitz’s principle On War that “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.” Historically military power has come from mass (mostly through ability to raise a large army) and natural resources. That is what is referred to as 1st generation warfare. While it's debated, the era of 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) is where we are currently situated, imo. COL TX Hammes, USMC (ret) concurs; LTC Antulio Echevarria, USA (PhD) dissents. In the Cold War, military power came from precision, speed, stealth and tactical ISR. It’s debated as to what will be the source of military power in the 21st century. The DSB has made some suggestions. Just to be explicit, military power is not the same as war. Having some military capababilities can deter war. If you find Wikipedia useful (I'm more of a primary data addict), you may find interesting: Westphalian Sovereignty Power in International Relations My favorite dead Prussian General (actually the only dead Prussian General I can name ), Carl von Clausewitz & Principles of War, which is sparse but worth noting how Clausewitz still influences profoundly US and UK military structure. A contemporary critic of Clausewitz, Marin van Creveld. (I found van Creveld's The Rise and Decline of the State quite accessible.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don't think any assurances will stop him from seeking nukes as they permamently reduce the risk of regime change from external forces. You are right that there are strong contemporary incentives for Iran see possession of nuclear weapons as as disincentive to military invasion, e.g., DPRK and its Oct 2006 'fizzle' versus its geographic neighbors. One approach to make the disincentives greater than that incentive is sanctions and containment. It worked to get Libya to give up its offensive nuclear weapons programs, as well as Norway & Sweden but the latter two are more historical. For reasons I outlined briefly as well as the historical record of the last 28 years, don't see sanctions working for Iran. Albeit there are some strong and experienced voices (e.g., Amb Dennis Ross) who will do make a strong case that effective coordinated sanctions (read: get China & Russia on board) will work. I differ. So what do you see as being an effective way to get Iran to verifiably give up pursuit of nuclear weapons? Where would you start? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link. Based on the short write-up it sounds like it's an evolutionary improvement on current technology that may also be much less expensive. If it is applicable to the industrial systems it may be very useful and beneficial to coal and natural gas power industries. "Carbonaceous sorbent" is sometimes a fancy way to say charcoal. Don't dismiss the power of charcoal. Very fancy carbonaceous sorbents are used effectively in lots of things (e.g., military M-40 'gas' masks filters for nerve agents). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That’s not was asked. It’s about as relevant as the classic “have you stopped beating your children?” or “why are you so argumentative?” You are making strong claims. Strong claims require strong evidence. Multiple folks have asked you to provide some citation, data, something to support those unsubstantiated claims. That’s all. VR/Marg p.s. If you search some of my posts, you'll actually find a list article citations and links from peer-reviewed technical journals that challenge specific claims (with data) or provide alternative analysis of data that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Saving the best – or potentially most incendiary, perhaps – for last. Point #4 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Direct Engagement The next President should be the one offering the “carrots.” That’s important for US credibility in the Middle East and globally. The US also needs to be willing to follow through on those ‘carrots.’ “I think the President should discuss the following issues with the Mr. Ahmadinejad:” Specific security assurances, i.e., no overt or covert attempts at regime change. Proactive engagement of Iran on their role in Iraq. (Eventually a trilateral with Prime Minister of Iraq.) Iran is already there, whether as guest of Prime Minister Maliki or more covertly (to put it diplomatically). Make them overtly responsible for aiding in security and stabilization and be willing to share the credit – or, heck, give them all the credit – for successes along their border and in southern Iraq. Unfreezing Iranian assets. Lifting unilateral sanctions. Concur w/r/t lower-level US bilaterals (or multilaterals) on some of the pieces you identified, as well as technology for modernizing Iran’s oil and natural gas industry. One of – if not the biggest – vulnerability of Iran is connected to energy. We should exploit that for our benefit … & not in a ‘cowboy diplomacy manner.’ Iran is producing 300,000-500,000 barrels per day below its OPEC quota not because Iran’s leaders don’t want to meet the quota but because they can’t. Iran derives ~85% of its export income from oil sales. Those revenues constitute ~50% of the federal income. Iran has already implemented domestic ‘conservation’/rationing efforts, partially for show, partially real, and partially for control of the populace. This is a huge opportunity to leverage in pursuit of America’s foreign policy goals, especially the #1 goal I mentioned. It’s also potentially very lucrative for firms like Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur strongly. Iran’s Middle East and southwest Asian neighbors, as well as Russia and China, need to step up to the proverbial plate, especially on the nuclear weapons related dialogue and diplomacy. Point #3 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Pursue active multilateral engagement – via established multilateral institutions and discussions not just the EU-3. Last week, Iran submitted a letter to the UN Secretary General and accompanying document titled “The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations.” There is nothing on suspending enrichment, but it does mention the possibility of "improved supervision by the IAEA," "joint collaboration over nculear safety and physical protection," encouraging other states to control nuclear-related equimpment, the establishment of "enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world, including Iran." Uh ... how about not Iran but IAEA fuel back yes. They're putting it out. Use it. Again, it's probably not going to produce instant gratification of what "we" want. Maybe that's part of the problem -- good diplomacy rarely works on an MTV-esque timescale. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Altho' I would probably not express it in quite those specific terms, I concur. While I think you know that I am less than enthusiastic about missile defense on scientific, technical and strategic grounds, you did identify another one of the areas that I think “both candidates have missed” – deterrence. Point #3 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Pursue both active and passive deterrence. The latter – passive deterrence – is something with which the US (& much of the western world) has struggled because it’s not ‘sexy,’ it doesn’t have a strong lobbying interest behind it (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing), and it takes patience. Rather than continuing to invest ~$14B a year when the entire RDT&E budget for counter WMD work at DoD is only ~$16B … the remaining $2B is for everything from medical countermeasures (vaccines & therapeutics) for chem, bio, radiological, and nuclear; personal and collective protection across CBRN; decontamination across CBRN; all cooperative threat reduction across CBRN; and other *stuff* related to counter-WMD, the US should pursue other active and passive deterrence mechanisms. Over the last almost 30 years active deterrence has been limited to missile defense. There are other approaches. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur, containment & isolation has not been effective and is not likely to be effective w/r/t Iran and achieving the US Foreign Policy goals (as I delineated them) Point #2 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Recognition that containment and isolation are not effective w//r/t Iran. Containment worked with Libya, and it’s working to some extent with the DPRK. (Kim Jong Il is willing to sacrifice his people; he’s not willing to risk his legacy and DPRK becoming a failed state.) Almost 30 years of containment policy toward Iran has driven the country inward – perpetuated an internal international martyr attitude -- and driven Iran to engage other states, e.g., DPRK, Syria … and China. China is one of Iran’s largest trading partners. Regardless of the party affiliation of the next US President, I would strongly encourage a slow and cautious easing off on the rhetoric regarding sanctions. Foreign policy implications extend beyond any single administration. It is critically important that the next administration not unilaterally repudiate all of the previous administration policies. (Yes, I recognize that might be a metaphorically painful pill to swallow for some/many. The current administration went 180° on significant foreign policy issues that extended back through to at least Pres. Reagan’s administration, e.g., BWC verification protocol.) Foreign policy needs to some basic consistency across administrations to maintain and strengthen credibility. Choose wisely and act intentionally, even if that action is sometimes quiet. Rather than pronouncements of changing policy, I would recommend tacit communication of it via multi-lateral and direct diplomacy dialogue. Sometimes what is not said can be just as powerful as what is said. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You hit on a few different points that I would definitely recommend including! Point #1 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: The US and its diplomatic corps need to significantly increase cognizance of cultural, historical, and religious factors influencing engagement with Iran. From the basics (Persian not Arab) to the influence of fundamentalists wanting to hasten the return of the “Hidden Iman.” A little effort can go a long way in diplomacy. Just as a stupid goof or arrogance can cripple negotiations and hinder relations for years. You’ve also alluded to another piece that I would recommend: Track II diplomacy, especially between scientists and business folks. Rather than Switzerland, I would recommend Russia as the location. It’s easier for Iranian nationals to get visas to Russia than Switzerland. (It also has a secondary benefit of engaging Russia.) And I completely concur with the need to pursue actively the use of "soft power." We had tremendous soft power influence through the collapse of the Soviet Union. The value and strategic importance of 'soft power' has been minimized over that last 7 years ... perhaps at a time when the US needed it more than ever, i.e., to reduce the threat of al Qa'eda and growth of the radical Salafists (Islamic terrorists) ... and to decrease tacit support of those terrorist groups by the majority of Moslems across the world who are more interested in raising their families. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What have both candidates missed? im-ever-ho ... Delineation of the goals of US Foreign Policy Toward Iran. What we want and why. Then go about figuring out how to get there. Goal #1: No nuclear weapons in Iran. Why? (Aka the “So what? Who cares?") A nuclear weapons state of Iran would be destabilizing to the region. Israel. Whatever your opinion on Israel & its policies, it perceives Iran -- & in particular a nuclear weapons empowered Iran – as a threat to its existence. The US may have variable influence on Israeli policy; the US does not, however, control Israel. Former Iranian President Akbar Rafsanjani, who was much more pragmatic than Ahmadinejad, noted than Iran – because of geographic size and dispersed population – could survive many nuclear bombs exploding within its state; Israel, given its small size and concentrated population centers, may not even survive the detonation of one modern nuclear weapon. Very similarly to segments of the US populace that have been concerned regarding suggestions that US policymakers are driven to fulfill Biblical prophecy for return of the Messiah (e.g., via the “Left Behind” series); the Iranian leadership is subject to influence by their own domestic fundamentalist apocryphal prophecy for hastening return of the “Hidden Iman.” The Israelis are cognizant of this, question whether that segment of the Iranian leadership can be deterred, and have indicated that they are less than enthusiastic about risking the consequence of finding out. If Iran is considered to be close or succeeds at producing nuclear weapons, the likelihood of a pre-emptive Israeli military strike is high. If you think politics in the Middle East in complicated & problematic now and if you think oil prices are high now, an Israeli strike on Iran will exacerbate both … considerably (to put it diplomatically). Proliferation. If Iran succeeds at producing nuclear weapons, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are likely to make decisions to pursue offensive nuclear weapons programs. Risk of transfer to sub-state or non-state actors. Whether direct, indirect, or tacit, Iran has connections to terrorist groups, notably but not limited to Hezbollah & Hamas. While I see nothing to indicate that Iran’s nuclear security would be particularly lax, that’s just a ‘guestimate.’ Beyond direct transfer for ideological, religious, or capitalistic reasons, the risk is there. Goal #2: Ending Iranian support for terrorist groups. Stop providing equipment, training, and other tacit support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional militias. Goal #3: Decreasing the risk of diversion of civilian nuclear power to offensive nuclear weapons programs. When the NPT was signed (1968), there was a tacit recognition/short-sighted assumption that most states didn’t have the technology, infrastructure, or knowledge-based workforce to develop independent nuclear weapons programs or support them. This is not the case in 2008. (The situation is similar w/r/t biological weapons programs; the BWC was signed in 1972.) Toward Goal #3 are actions like continued support of the IAEA Fuel Bank Initiative. That's my initial vision of what the goals of the US Foreign Policy Toward Iran should be (ends). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Okay, so now it's starting to become clear(er). "Friendsofscience.org" is using uncorrected lower troposphere (lower atmosphere) measurements. Corrected data here. Discussion and primary data from Science article here, which includes John Christy's/UAH data & analysis -- even his trend line is going up. Temperature is not measured directly in the atmosphere. FOS also doesn't cite how they drew their line that you are citing; "best fit" is a colloqialism. They do note, however, that "FOS does not do any original scientific research," right on the front page. At the bottom of this NASA data you can see data on stratosphere (upper lower atmosphere) temps. The temperature data from the stratosphere are *really* going down. Do think that's evidence against climate change? Again, I have not been citing anything related to CO2 (as I've mentioned repeatedly) but direct temperature measurements. Again, here's NASA direct data plotted (no CO2), which shows 2005 global mean temperatures -- directly measured increased from 1998. Here's another data set again of directly measured temperatures (no CO2) showing 2005 higher than 1998. And a write-up on 2005 temperatures (previously cited). Data released earlier this year (that I cited previously) shows 2007 global temps also did not decrease compare to 1998. Again, all directly measured temperatures -- not trend lines -- showing unambiguously that 2005 & 2007 temperatures did not decrease compared to 1998. No "best fit" just directly measured data. Why was the 1998 contribution so anomolously warm in the year-to-year comparisons? El Nino, and a very strong one. Why did the 1999 & 2000 temperatures decrease relative to 1998? La Nina. It's worth noting that 1999 & 2000 global surface temperatures were still higher than anything before 1985. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Or how about sometimes people make mistakes (remember that thread from the end of April?) Most people don't like to their mistakes pointed out -- fairly consistent reaction regardless of political leanings, eh? Some own up, some get quiet, and some dig in deeper. There's a fine line between stubborn & tenacious -- goodness knows I've pushed if not crossed it: remember the story about my Digitude and the Nepali soldier w/M16 coming out of the rhododendron forest who wanted it? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

For the sake of argument, let's assume that doesn't happen, e.g., GEN Petraeus is now head of CENTCOM so he keeps the CINC and VP focused on Iraq. What would you like to see the next President's foreign policy toward Iran be? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The next US President’s foreign policy toward Iran has gotten a lot of attention. Do you think it should? Why or why not? What would you like to see the US foreign policy toward Iran be in the next President’s administration & why? I’m interested in reading both US and non-US opinions. I may actually be more curious to read non-US opinions. To start, I’ve appended below excerpts from Sen McCain and Sen Obama’s website on their vision for US foreign policy toward Iran. What are both candidates missing? VR/Marg From Sen McCain’s website, which is under the heading Strategy for Victory in Iraq: Call for international pressure on Syria and Iran “Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents. “The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.” (Surprisingly, to me, Sen McCain doesn't have a "Foreign Policy" specific area of his website ... unless I missed it?) From Sen Obama’s website, under the heading Foreign Policy: Iran “The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq. “Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran. “Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.” Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You must’ve missed the earlier posts where someone claimed that the CO2 that man is producing is causing the global warming. Fair enough ... altho’ still find it odd that you entangled it with your response to me. But, eh, that’s my opinion. Really? Following through on your suggestion: [post #148] "Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down." [post #151] "1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then." [post #153] "Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998." Would you re-evaluate your claims if temperatures (facts) have been shown to have not not gone down every year since 1998? Aka “Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?” (i.e., the initial question in [post #155], which was precise, did not refer to CO2, and did not refer to causal factors … just directly measured facts). It really was a very easy question with lots of conceivable ‘outs’ and explanations: Singer may not have updated his analyses (it’s not your responsibility to keep him updated); it could be new information that you hadn’t seen before (didn’t want to assume); or you could have presented contradictory data (not aware of any but proving a negative is usually a challenge). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science. Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998? VR/Marg Actually, no. I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. The Earth has gone through many cycles prior to man and will continue to long after man is gone. Correlating CO2 to temperature is what the people pushing this global warming theory want us to believe. Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory. Huh ... where did CO2 come in? You were talking about direct measurement of temperature. That's the 1998 & the 2005 & the 2007 data (aka facts). So again, you won't re-evaulate your repeated claim that 1998 was the warmest year even when presented with direct measurement data (facts) that show that 2005 and 2007 were as warm or warmer even when presented with facts that demonstrate direct measurement of such? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hmm - still don't see anything about taking land in here. Am I missing it? Yes. Territorial sovereignty is the basis of governmental power (whether autocratic, representive democracy, or some other form of government). Can you name a historical attempt to acquire territory through war (state on state armed conflict) that did not have a political motive? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And a large part of the recent for the peak (until 2005 or 2007) was the El Niño that warmed the equitorial and east Pacific surface temps. We haven't had an El Niño since then. 1999 had a La Niña (cooling) of the surface of the Pacific surface temps. It's a great illustration of how many different pieces and contributing factors go into climate science. (Or alternatively, the danger of trying to read too much into one data point, which is a truism across many fields.) Anthropogenic climate change isn't as new of an idea as some would like to portray, e.g., in 1827 Fourier hypothesized greenhouse effect for global warming & in 1896 Arrenhius calculated earth warming from gases and predicts future warming from CO2. Like many things, it took a few years (decade) to have the instrumentation for drilling ice cores or the computing power for analysis and models. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

-[at myself] I have a pair of pink camouflage pants, purchased on base a couple years ago, that make me guilty of something, not sure it it's trying to be an urban warrior tho' ... perhaps questionable taste in casual clothing? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Did you check the veracity of these claims before posting? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I find it interesting that when the hype started, it was "global warming." And now it is "climate change." Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down. However, at the same time, CO2 has increased and human production has increased. So you’ve got “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to "climate change," it allows people to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. I find your response interesting. Particularly as the piece that you quoted says very little specifically about climate change one way or another. Rather my words noted both anthropogenic and natural climate change without specific comparative extent or intensity. (Rate is not the same thing as extent or intensity.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science. Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Could you be more specific what you see as "conflicted" and what you see as "ironic"? I tried to disentangle the two concepts, apparently my response (quoted above) was not successful. It is true that the majority of the world's population subsist on $2 or less per day. That's somewhat irrelevant since on $2 day your consumption is vey low. I suspect more fuel is derived from dried animal dung then "dry branches" for cooking & heating, i.e., recycling in a way that seems unpalatable to most in the western world. It is also true that the largest growth (shifting demographics) are to cities and to megacities (10M or more). For some perhaps. But some folks just never seem happy with anything, eh? For me at least, not at all. Concur, altho' w/out the worldwide karoake please. I'm not sure what your concept of "absolute evolution" means. The two ideas you write are not in conflict. Part of evolution is our cogitive abilities that allow us to not conceive of such stewardship because it benefits our species. That's completely consonant with evolution. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution" becuase what you describe above is wrong. Evolution has produced 'dead-ends,' e.g., Neanderthals. What you seem to be describing seems more like the argument against transhumanism, from what I can tell. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

But I like the part about the "higher traits"...Higher than whom, than us? Normatively "higher" in comparison to our nearest non-human primate relatives and other mammals. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Excellent response! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying