Although the nuclear taboo is widespread today, it is probably not universal. A critical question is whether it holds for new nuclear states and for nondemocratic states that are not accountable to public opinion.
Tannenwald, p. 34
Um, okay. All states depend upon – are accountable to – their public. Governance depends upon the acquiescence of the governed. In the specific context, starting a destructive and wasteful war – i.e., dropping the bomb – can generate substantial resistance, even to the harshest dictators: ask Mussolini or Robespierre.
Al-Qaida may wish to topple the House of Saud, but if a majority of citizens do not support this goal, al-Qaida is unlikely to achieve it.
Kydd and Walter, p. 54
The House of Saud won’t fall until a majority of citizens don’t support it. Really? Even in a democracy, it takes a lot less than a majority of the population to change the leadership – it can be done with a plurality of those who vote. Bush, in 2000, was elected by about 50 million (or, if you’re really cynical, five) in a nation of more than 280 million.
But we’re not talking about an election here. We’re talking about a revolution or a coup, which is done by a few highly committed people.
I'm a big fan of democracy and all, but these two writers seem to deploy grade-school understandings of majority rule.
Yes, I know that I'm nitpicking.
3 comments:
dr. duke nukem scolded:
"I'm nitpicking too, but I think it's better to debate those issues actually present in the articles."
I'm aware of the fact that the lines I quoted are not, in fact, the main argument of either piece.
That's why I included the disclaimer that I was nitpicking, and it's why I didn't raise the point in class.
I absolutely loved the fact that all three articles this week were based on visions of the state that were more nuanced than realist unitary states. I didn't so much love the fact that the authors dropped the ball at times.
But look, it's not like I wrote a dissertation about the lapses, or claimed that the odd bits invalidated the larger arguments.
I made an acknowledgedly small point about the readings in a small forum. Even that was too much for ddn, who told me to shut my pie-hole.
Meta-issues about whether I should shut the hell up aside; in that quote, Tannenwald is specifically talking about the accountability of non-democratic states -- the after-effects of their actions -- and whether varying degrees of accountability affect the decision-making process.
The consequences for a non-democratic state are very different than they would be for a democracy. Tannenwald phrases it marginally more strongly than I do, and to that extent, I disagree.
This is what passes for a flame war? You people understand nothing of the internet...
Dr. Nukem -- Can I call you Duke? -- makes a good point in the second comment, that the applicability of the taboo to non-democratic (or less democratic) regimes is a huge issue, and Tannenwald glosses over it.
Whoops, I mean, dr. duke nukem is a troll! Eben Cooke is my hero! Um, it's Clinton's fault!
Sigh.
Maybe it's because we're both democracies.
Post a Comment