Pjen
04-07-2002, 11:18 AM
There are many posts on this board stating that as the US is the world's most powerful nation bar none, it should use its might to enforce its will.
There are similar posts stressing that Israel's military might is such that it will always overwhelm Arab opposition.
These examples ignore the asymmetric effect of damage to the nation concerned:
In the case of the US, even if it unleashed its power against, say Iraq, and caused such damage that Iraq virtually ceased to exist, this would have less overall effect than, say, a small nuclear device exploded on board a ship in, say San Diego (driven or sailed over the border from Mexico). The loss to the Arab nations may amount to millions of dollars and possibly tens of thousands of people- result- Iraq remains impoverished and medieval. The loss to the US may be only a few thousand dead, but massive financial and military loss, and massive effect on the feeling of safety at home. Cost of the US action to the US- Billions of dollars, cost to Iraq of the nuclear device, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the case of Israel, she is able to use her over-weaning power to damage the Palestinian nation, but the loss of each single Israeli citizen has more negative effects on the Israeli body politic than tens or hundreds of Palestinian deaths.
Britain had the same problem with the Irish Republican Army- the target for Britain was small, and they were able to turn every negative event to their propaganda advantage. The target for the IRA was large and every loss impacted on the British body politic beyond real reason.
I am interested in how people who back Bush's proposed use of force to overcome the 'Axis of Evil' and other world problems are able to square away these problems of Might and Asymmetry.
There are similar posts stressing that Israel's military might is such that it will always overwhelm Arab opposition.
These examples ignore the asymmetric effect of damage to the nation concerned:
In the case of the US, even if it unleashed its power against, say Iraq, and caused such damage that Iraq virtually ceased to exist, this would have less overall effect than, say, a small nuclear device exploded on board a ship in, say San Diego (driven or sailed over the border from Mexico). The loss to the Arab nations may amount to millions of dollars and possibly tens of thousands of people- result- Iraq remains impoverished and medieval. The loss to the US may be only a few thousand dead, but massive financial and military loss, and massive effect on the feeling of safety at home. Cost of the US action to the US- Billions of dollars, cost to Iraq of the nuclear device, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the case of Israel, she is able to use her over-weaning power to damage the Palestinian nation, but the loss of each single Israeli citizen has more negative effects on the Israeli body politic than tens or hundreds of Palestinian deaths.
Britain had the same problem with the Irish Republican Army- the target for Britain was small, and they were able to turn every negative event to their propaganda advantage. The target for the IRA was large and every loss impacted on the British body politic beyond real reason.
I am interested in how people who back Bush's proposed use of force to overcome the 'Axis of Evil' and other world problems are able to square away these problems of Might and Asymmetry.