Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Only Disproportionate Force Is Not Enough Force
Richard Cohen atones for horrible column last week with a very good one this week. He basically says that the whole "disproportion" argument put forth by the Europeans and others is a load of crock.
Money quote:
Or as a professor of mine in college said on September 12th, 2001 when asked how the U.S. should respond: "Nuke Afghanistan. You punch me, I cut off your arm". He wasn't joking, much to the shock of many in the classroom.
Money quote:
It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.
Or as a professor of mine in college said on September 12th, 2001 when asked how the U.S. should respond: "Nuke Afghanistan. You punch me, I cut off your arm". He wasn't joking, much to the shock of many in the classroom.
posted by LWY, 12:42 PM
10 Comments:
Deterrance doesn't work very well on irrational actors. For example, the death penalty in the U.S. does not work as a deterrant.
The other problem is that if everybody took your professor's advice, every minor skirmish would quickly escalate into nuclear war, or as close to that end as the two sides could get. Even from an amoral standpoint, reacting as strongly as possible is a sub-optimal solution from a game theory perspective.
The other problem is that if everybody took your professor's advice, every minor skirmish would quickly escalate into nuclear war, or as close to that end as the two sides could get. Even from an amoral standpoint, reacting as strongly as possible is a sub-optimal solution from a game theory perspective.
Deterrance doesn't work very well on irrational actors. For example, the death penalty in the U.S. does not work as a deterrant.
I don't think Hezbollah is totally irrational. In fact they can be quite rational. They attacked Israel to deflect attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions. It worked perfectly.
The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrant because we don't use it enough. The same is true with violence- Israel has spent the last 6 years ignoring the growing Hezbollah threat, so Hezbollah figured they could get away with its latest attack. Whatever the result is with this current conflict, Israel has definitly reestablished deterence.
The other problem is that if everybody took your professor's advice, every minor skirmish would quickly escalate into nuclear war, or as close to that end as the two sides could get. Even from an amoral standpoint, reacting as strongly as possible is a sub-optimal solution from a game theory perspective.
That's true when both sides are of equal strength. But when one is much stronger than the other (like here) then an overwhelming response can have the perfect effect.
I don't think Hezbollah is totally irrational. In fact they can be quite rational. They attacked Israel to deflect attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions. It worked perfectly.
The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrant because we don't use it enough. The same is true with violence- Israel has spent the last 6 years ignoring the growing Hezbollah threat, so Hezbollah figured they could get away with its latest attack. Whatever the result is with this current conflict, Israel has definitly reestablished deterence.
The other problem is that if everybody took your professor's advice, every minor skirmish would quickly escalate into nuclear war, or as close to that end as the two sides could get. Even from an amoral standpoint, reacting as strongly as possible is a sub-optimal solution from a game theory perspective.
That's true when both sides are of equal strength. But when one is much stronger than the other (like here) then an overwhelming response can have the perfect effect.
Even when one side is much stronger, it must take into account the effect of it's strong response on the world. For example, if we had nuked Afghanistan, it would have lowered the barrier to using nukes for everyone. What happens the next time something flares up in Kashmir?
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Even when one side is much stronger, it must take into account the effect of it's strong response on the world. For example, if we had nuked Afghanistan, it would have lowered the barrier to using nukes for everyone. What happens the next time something flares up in Kashmir?
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Even when one side is much stronger, it must take into account the effect of it's strong response on the world. For example, if we had nuked Afghanistan, it would have lowered the barrier to using nukes for everyone. What happens the next time something flares up in Kashmir?
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Israel must also be concerned with world opinion, considering how much of it's survival is dependant on the U.S. and our allies.
Deterrance doesn't work very well on irrational actors. For example, the death penalty in the U.S. does not work as a deterrant.
Who says the death penalty
isn't a deterrent?
Who says the death penalty
isn't a deterrent?
I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of surveys show that it is not a deterrent, although it's hard to tell due to complicating factors. For example, states with the death penalty, which always had more murder, had an even higher rise in murders as executions went up.
I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of surveys show that it is not a deterrent, although it's hard to tell due to complicating factors. For example, states with the death penalty, which always had more murder, had an even higher rise in murders as executions went up.
I doubt someone like Cass Sunstein, who I don't see as being a hardcore conservative, would cherrypick a study that supports the death penalty.
I doubt someone like Cass Sunstein, who I don't see as being a hardcore conservative, would cherrypick a study that supports the death penalty.
Just do a google search. It really does seem like most studies show it doesn't work.
I noticed the second editorial without noticing it was the same person until you pointed it out. Part of the problem is that liberal writers don't just make arguments, they enter into all sorts of convoluted posturing and rhetorical negotiations with their readers. It is all designed to make the argument look complex and the writer look cognizant of the opposing positions. So your typical liberal political essay will end "Yes it would be a big mistake to vote for Kerry, and an even bigger mistake not to vote for him." In retrospect, perhaps the "Israel was a mistake" business was a particularly regrettable example of that sort of writing.
