A Three Sentence Description of Solid Foreign Security Policy: AKA “How Non Interventionism Increases Security”

The word “obliterate” is problematic and (depending on the threat) is unlikely to earn anyone a standing ovation.

I disagree. I think obliterate is the appropriate word when people are researching how to kill millions of people via biological or chemical warfare, for God, so that they can attain virgins.

The same goes for any doomsday group that wants to wipe out people on a mass scale — especially when they can’t possibly know the extent of the damage that they might do.

You don’t mess with groups like this. If someone is trying to create a flu pandemic that will make the 1918 bout look like an average season, it’s time to use the word obliterate.

Daniel,

You broke the hypothetical world into two groups: 95% love us, 5% threaten us. Then you use the word obliterate for that 5%. My point is that not every threat requires obliteration. This is the sort of thinking that gets people (and countries) into trouble.

It just sounds too much like: “Either you love us or we are free to obliterate you.” In fact, it is logically equivalent to this statement.

Ah, very true. Good point.

So, 60% love us. 20% like us ok. 10% we quarrel with (diplomatically). 5% we have harsh words with but don’t go to war with. 5% are not approachable and are a danger to the world.

But those are big numbers for the sake of argument. In reality, the final number of unapproachables is some small percentage of 1%.

This model works for countries like Canada or the Netherlands – both very respectable and friendly countries. However, don't kid yourself – there are bad people and leaders in this world. When they act up and cause problems, there needs to be a strong force like America that can take charge.

Carrot and stick. A world without sticks would be scary.