Today, posting this pic made me think about the Ducks of Minerva. I think a good post was made there today about the "taboo" of chemical weapons use.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Rubber Duckie
Today, posting this pic made me think about the Ducks of Minerva. I think a good post was made there today about the "taboo" of chemical weapons use.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Logic Behind Using Chemical Weapons
One the blog, Political Violence @ a Glance, Barbara Walter gives a Friday Puzzler. Today the puzzler is:
Given Assad’s extensive conventional weapons capabilities, why use chemical weapons? What’s the logic behind using them?
My first thought on the matter is signalling. Non-conventional weapons use sends a signal to the opponent targeted by the weapons use. The signal here is that the massive conventional arsenal that will destroy urban centers does not have to be used. Weapons of mass human destructive capacity can be used instead to kill and seriously incapacitate opposition members. The second part of the signal to the opposition is that Assad has the will to use internationally unpopular weapons, not being deterred by statements from international leaders about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons. Of course, the second part of the signal also has some consequences, namely what will the international community at which Assad thumbed his nose do as a response to the use of chemical weapons? Of course, I am also not considering here the rationality of the decision to send the signal.
Given Assad’s extensive conventional weapons capabilities, why use chemical weapons? What’s the logic behind using them?
My first thought on the matter is signalling. Non-conventional weapons use sends a signal to the opponent targeted by the weapons use. The signal here is that the massive conventional arsenal that will destroy urban centers does not have to be used. Weapons of mass human destructive capacity can be used instead to kill and seriously incapacitate opposition members. The second part of the signal to the opposition is that Assad has the will to use internationally unpopular weapons, not being deterred by statements from international leaders about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons. Of course, the second part of the signal also has some consequences, namely what will the international community at which Assad thumbed his nose do as a response to the use of chemical weapons? Of course, I am also not considering here the rationality of the decision to send the signal.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Some Observations About....
Ok, so I haven't blogged since June. I took the summer off from blogging. But I am back, hopefully I still have something to say on occasion. Observation #1: I really did not miss blogging, so maybe I am not really good at blogging and maybe I should just quit blogging altogether. Nah, I just focused on my research and reading this summer and did not take the time to share my thoughts with the world.
So what are the topics most prominent in our minds these days. Observation #2: we really did not get that upset about finding out the government was really listening to our conversations. Oh well, I have been saying that the government is listening for years, Snowden just confirmed it with his admissions. And then, Observation #3: my opinion, personal opinion, about Snowden is worth as much as anyone else's opinion. My opinion is that he should have stayed to face the music here in the U.S. running just make you look less courageous.
Observation #4: I was right, I told you so, etc. Syria, well, I said over one year ago to expect this one to be ugly because Assad is not going quietly into the night. But this does bring me to Observation #5: strange world when I wake up and Sec. of State Kerry is more "hawkish" than I. I mean, which of the following represents Kerry:
or,
Ok, the difference might not be as dramatic as these clips, but...
Final Observation: I bet most of you reading this have no clue how many people were trapped at the airport in the capital city of the Central African Republic when they ran there for looking for shelter from violence in the CAR last week. You also probably do not know the name of the capital of the CAR.
So what are the topics most prominent in our minds these days. Observation #2: we really did not get that upset about finding out the government was really listening to our conversations. Oh well, I have been saying that the government is listening for years, Snowden just confirmed it with his admissions. And then, Observation #3: my opinion, personal opinion, about Snowden is worth as much as anyone else's opinion. My opinion is that he should have stayed to face the music here in the U.S. running just make you look less courageous.
Observation #4: I was right, I told you so, etc. Syria, well, I said over one year ago to expect this one to be ugly because Assad is not going quietly into the night. But this does bring me to Observation #5: strange world when I wake up and Sec. of State Kerry is more "hawkish" than I. I mean, which of the following represents Kerry:
or,
Final Observation: I bet most of you reading this have no clue how many people were trapped at the airport in the capital city of the Central African Republic when they ran there for looking for shelter from violence in the CAR last week. You also probably do not know the name of the capital of the CAR.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
NSA, Privacy, Government Intrusion, Necessary Security--My Head is Exploding
Before I start giving my thoughts on the news about NSA intercept and storage, my words alone and not those of any agency or department or other pieces on the issue (remember that the word collection has specific meaning--just ask the head of the NSA), I believe that full disclosure is in order. One, I served in the U.S. Air Force, my father served in the U.S. Air Force, and my grandfather served in the U.S. Army Air Force, service and dedication to the freedoms of our people and our country runs deep in my family. Two, I am an unashamed civil libertarian who believes that both Republicans and Democrats have sold this country down the tubes (at an alarmingly rapid rate of increase in the last decade). Three, I consider most of the residents and citizens of the U.S. to be either numb-skulled or so terribly apathetic that they have no clue that the country has been sold down the tubes over the last several decades. Cue the sheepdogs, oh wait, the sheepdogs are now led by the wolves, and the sheep are in real deep trouble.
The known human security denigrating events of the last twenty years (I'll go back that far, earlier is just adding material and wasting space in argument), civil violence, gun violence, terrorism, real wars, fake wars, economic stupidity, economic collapses, drug abuse, drug violence, etc., is staggering in scope. Of course, human development has aided in the staggering amount of knowledge of these events by the generation of rapid, digital based, communication formats. My point being that the knowledge of these events is based on the ability to communicate rapidly, that similar events did occur prior to the advent of rapid, digital media formats, but that without the advent of digital communication the population remained largely unaware of these events. If we do not know about these events are we in any less need of protection and security against the ills of these events? I answer no. We are in need of protection against the ills of these events--thus we have the sheepdogs (police, investigators, government agents of the various alphabet soup collection, militias (at least so goes the militias' own claims), soldiers, sailors, airmen, and even Marines (are you happy McFeaters?)).
But what happens when the wolves get to be in charge of the necessary civilian leadership of the sheepdogs? Now we get leadership that thinks it is a good idea to usurp the freedoms (privacy is a freedom) of the people--who being numb skulls and highly apathetic--have done nothing to get rid of the wolves. Instead, the people have sat back allowed the wolves to run the sheepdogs and now the sheepdogs are infringing on our freedoms in the name of security. Is it a necessary element of security to grossly infringe on the rights of free people, people for whom many others have shed sweat, tears, blood? My head aches, my heart is heavy, good thing I can turn my eyes to the heavens and read Psalms of ascent.
So, anyway, my two cents worth is that "We the people" being mostly sheep are in deep trouble. The wolves are actually running the sheepdogs, and those they would call wolves are still wolves. Does this make any sense, if not, it is because it should not make sense. When did "We the people" quit actually caring and doing our part of the duty to ensure that wolves did not become the leaders of the sheepdogs? No necessary security requirement is fulfilled by the intercept and storage my emails and telephone conversations. No real security against the ills of human security denigrating events has been created by the actions of our government post 9/11--it is all theater and sham. And what have "We the people" done--nothing, we are become sheep.
The known human security denigrating events of the last twenty years (I'll go back that far, earlier is just adding material and wasting space in argument), civil violence, gun violence, terrorism, real wars, fake wars, economic stupidity, economic collapses, drug abuse, drug violence, etc., is staggering in scope. Of course, human development has aided in the staggering amount of knowledge of these events by the generation of rapid, digital based, communication formats. My point being that the knowledge of these events is based on the ability to communicate rapidly, that similar events did occur prior to the advent of rapid, digital media formats, but that without the advent of digital communication the population remained largely unaware of these events. If we do not know about these events are we in any less need of protection and security against the ills of these events? I answer no. We are in need of protection against the ills of these events--thus we have the sheepdogs (police, investigators, government agents of the various alphabet soup collection, militias (at least so goes the militias' own claims), soldiers, sailors, airmen, and even Marines (are you happy McFeaters?)).
But what happens when the wolves get to be in charge of the necessary civilian leadership of the sheepdogs? Now we get leadership that thinks it is a good idea to usurp the freedoms (privacy is a freedom) of the people--who being numb skulls and highly apathetic--have done nothing to get rid of the wolves. Instead, the people have sat back allowed the wolves to run the sheepdogs and now the sheepdogs are infringing on our freedoms in the name of security. Is it a necessary element of security to grossly infringe on the rights of free people, people for whom many others have shed sweat, tears, blood? My head aches, my heart is heavy, good thing I can turn my eyes to the heavens and read Psalms of ascent.
So, anyway, my two cents worth is that "We the people" being mostly sheep are in deep trouble. The wolves are actually running the sheepdogs, and those they would call wolves are still wolves. Does this make any sense, if not, it is because it should not make sense. When did "We the people" quit actually caring and doing our part of the duty to ensure that wolves did not become the leaders of the sheepdogs? No necessary security requirement is fulfilled by the intercept and storage my emails and telephone conversations. No real security against the ills of human security denigrating events has been created by the actions of our government post 9/11--it is all theater and sham. And what have "We the people" done--nothing, we are become sheep.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Farewell to A Theoretic Giant
Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) passed away last night. For those unfamiliar with this name, you are not a student or scholar of International Relations, nor have you spent time around serious scholars of International Relations, nor have you ever taken an introductory course in International Relations (or at least a course that was properly taught). I can say these things without hesitancy or feeling smug about knowing something arcane, mysterious, or utterly useless, because Ken Waltz was a giant in the discipline of International Relations.
I have sat in the room as Ken Waltz lectured on three occasions, I cannot say that I knew him well, but I know his major works well--I have read Man, The State, and War as well as Theory of International Politics and re-read them on occasion. In these pages, clear, lucid detail explains how people, governments, and systems of governments can be understood to function. Waltz is the godfather of neo-structural realism or Neorealism as we understand this theory to work in contemporary study of International Relations. In each undergraduate introductory course in International Relations I have taught, I have required my students to read Waltz's Man, The State, and War.
So in tribute to Waltz, a few lines from Man, the State, and War (1959):
"Others argue that wars occur because men expect war; to abolish war, the expectations of men must be changed" (1959, 57)
"To understand war and peace political analysis must be used to supplement and order the findings of psychology and sociology. What kind of political analysis is needed? For possible explanations of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of war, one can look to international politics (since war occurs among states), or one can look to the states themselves (since it is in the name of the state that the fighting is actually done)."
(1959, 81)
My humble two-cents is that we who still linger and carry on the scholarship of International Relations have lost a theoretic giant.
I have sat in the room as Ken Waltz lectured on three occasions, I cannot say that I knew him well, but I know his major works well--I have read Man, The State, and War as well as Theory of International Politics and re-read them on occasion. In these pages, clear, lucid detail explains how people, governments, and systems of governments can be understood to function. Waltz is the godfather of neo-structural realism or Neorealism as we understand this theory to work in contemporary study of International Relations. In each undergraduate introductory course in International Relations I have taught, I have required my students to read Waltz's Man, The State, and War.
So in tribute to Waltz, a few lines from Man, the State, and War (1959):
"Others argue that wars occur because men expect war; to abolish war, the expectations of men must be changed" (1959, 57)
"To understand war and peace political analysis must be used to supplement and order the findings of psychology and sociology. What kind of political analysis is needed? For possible explanations of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of war, one can look to international politics (since war occurs among states), or one can look to the states themselves (since it is in the name of the state that the fighting is actually done)."
(1959, 81)
My humble two-cents is that we who still linger and carry on the scholarship of International Relations have lost a theoretic giant.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Books, TV, Movies--My List
Ok, I haven't blogged in awhile, been real busy trying to remodel a room at the house, teach four classes and a lab session each week, and keep up with reading. Hey that's what I am blogging about now, reading, or reading and watching, what should people interested in political science, particularly international relations, read and watch. I am spurred to this effort by the work of Stephen Saideman and a piece at Ducks of Minerva. I have some overlap with both of these lists, and, of course Steve may not like it that I say you should read more realism, but hey, this is my two cents.
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, I re-read it every few years. Why does the largest group not always win?
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, one very cogent way to think about the puzzle that is our world is simply to realize that our world is a puzzle. Charity toward our fellow man, population, state, should teach us that we may not understand what is meant by words and actions that others take and often we have created bias that informs our understanding in a bad way.
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, realism from a political economic perspective that also teaches us that while Marx is dead, and communism pretty much sucks, that Marx did understand a few things about perspective that can be applied to understanding competition for power and security.
John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, thoughtful, and easy to read. Wow, why can't everyone make interesting material approachable. And, yes, great power behavior is tragic.
Stephen Walt, The Origin of Alliances, why do we make friends, why do we take sides? I happen to agree with Walt, threat matters more than ideology.
Hugo Slim, Killing Civilians, one of the hardest to read (because of the content, no problems with style) books I ever picked up. Immensely valuable material, particularly for the sheltered in our midst, that I suggest everyone read in any class on warfare of any type.
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, a difficult read, but a must if you really want to understand constructivist viewpoints regarding international relations.
Brigitte Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, I would not normally recommend a textbook, but this one is useful and practical for understanding various ways of discussing, defining, and generally understanding terrorism.
Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, quoting from Ducks of Minerva, "Most successfuls comps outline in the history of academia," which sums up this book nicely.
St. Augustine The City of God and Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, both need to be read, particularly if you want to really understand just war theory.
What to watch, I have to agree here with Steve, watch classic Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. I also recommend watching Breaker Morant and Lord of War for various reasons related to human behavior in wartime and human insanity in general.
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, I re-read it every few years. Why does the largest group not always win?
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, one very cogent way to think about the puzzle that is our world is simply to realize that our world is a puzzle. Charity toward our fellow man, population, state, should teach us that we may not understand what is meant by words and actions that others take and often we have created bias that informs our understanding in a bad way.
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, realism from a political economic perspective that also teaches us that while Marx is dead, and communism pretty much sucks, that Marx did understand a few things about perspective that can be applied to understanding competition for power and security.
John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, thoughtful, and easy to read. Wow, why can't everyone make interesting material approachable. And, yes, great power behavior is tragic.
Stephen Walt, The Origin of Alliances, why do we make friends, why do we take sides? I happen to agree with Walt, threat matters more than ideology.
Hugo Slim, Killing Civilians, one of the hardest to read (because of the content, no problems with style) books I ever picked up. Immensely valuable material, particularly for the sheltered in our midst, that I suggest everyone read in any class on warfare of any type.
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, a difficult read, but a must if you really want to understand constructivist viewpoints regarding international relations.
Brigitte Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, I would not normally recommend a textbook, but this one is useful and practical for understanding various ways of discussing, defining, and generally understanding terrorism.
Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, quoting from Ducks of Minerva, "Most successfuls comps outline in the history of academia," which sums up this book nicely.
St. Augustine The City of God and Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, both need to be read, particularly if you want to really understand just war theory.
What to watch, I have to agree here with Steve, watch classic Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. I also recommend watching Breaker Morant and Lord of War for various reasons related to human behavior in wartime and human insanity in general.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Buy a Shotgun
Joe Biden, the esteemed vice-president of the United States, in pushing the firearm agenda of the Obama administration says that we should buy a shotgun. Now, I have no real issue with this comment. In fact, I have told people for years, if you are not going to take the time and make the effort to be proficient in the use of a handgun or rifle, and still want to defend yourself, buy a shotgun. Of course, my buy a shotgun is apparently different than that of VP Biden, who wants you to have a single-barrel, single-shot or at best a double-barrel shotgun.
"Buy a shotgun," he said, lowering his voice almost to whisper.
Well, let's stop and think about this for a minute VP Biden. "Fire two blasts outside the house." Fire at what, do you aim, or just fire off both barrels? Once you have fired those two barrels into the air, what happens next? Most people are not going to be proficient at rapid reloading of shotguns. I can fire about 6 rounds per minute with a single-barrel, if I hold shells between my lips and between my fingers when I start the process. And what did you hit if you just blasted off two rounds?
Sorry VP Biden, but while the shotgun idea is sound, what is more sound is to buy a pump action or semi-automatic shotgun that holds five or more 2 3/4 or 3 inch shells loaded with buck shot. What is even more sound is to aim at the intruder in the window, doorway, hallway through which they are invading your personal space/private property, not to go outside the house and fire off two rounds (which assumes you are going to hear the intruder coming and hear them outside your home). Even more sound is having aimed at the intruder to shoot the intruder. Of course this is only my two cents worth of thought, and I pray to God that no person has to make these sound decisions, ever.
"We live in an area
that's wooded and secluded," Biden said. "I said, Jill, if there's ever
a problem just walk out on the balcony here ... put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."
"I promise you whoever's coming in is not gonna," Biden
said. "You don't need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It's harder to aim.
It's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect
yourself.""Buy a shotgun," he said, lowering his voice almost to whisper.
Well, let's stop and think about this for a minute VP Biden. "Fire two blasts outside the house." Fire at what, do you aim, or just fire off both barrels? Once you have fired those two barrels into the air, what happens next? Most people are not going to be proficient at rapid reloading of shotguns. I can fire about 6 rounds per minute with a single-barrel, if I hold shells between my lips and between my fingers when I start the process. And what did you hit if you just blasted off two rounds?
Sorry VP Biden, but while the shotgun idea is sound, what is more sound is to buy a pump action or semi-automatic shotgun that holds five or more 2 3/4 or 3 inch shells loaded with buck shot. What is even more sound is to aim at the intruder in the window, doorway, hallway through which they are invading your personal space/private property, not to go outside the house and fire off two rounds (which assumes you are going to hear the intruder coming and hear them outside your home). Even more sound is having aimed at the intruder to shoot the intruder. Of course this is only my two cents worth of thought, and I pray to God that no person has to make these sound decisions, ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)