Friday, October 07, 2005
Finally, I missed a month. But I'm determined not to beat my record for longest dormant period (July 1 to August 25).
The Nobel Peace Prize was announced today. From a field of 199, the committee chose Mohammad ElBaradei.
First, where did they come up with 199 names? I can't think of 199 newsmakers for the years, let alone 199 people who have done a thing to improve peace in the world.
I think perhaps the award is degenerating to the level of a Technical Oscar. You know, those awards given to the individual who invented a better zoom lens, or the SteadyCam mount. Great inventions, I'm sure, but not the awards the public came to see.
Similarly, when the best candidate you can find is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a guy who is just doing his job, the Nobel Peace Prize may be sinking.
I didn't break my long silence to criticize the Nobel committee, however. They're just a bunch of guys doing their job too, after all.
My problem is this quote from the Nobel Committee in an ABC News International story:
Some people, loving ideas more than reality, have no ability to reason. Post Hiroshima, there has been no use of atomic weapons on people. We test to avoid affecting animals, even (perhaps in fear of a Godzilla vs. Gamelon future.)
Nuclear weapons finally found the limit of the definition of "unlimited warfare". Sixty years later, we have had no repeat of the two world wars, or of such wide-ranging wars as the Napoleonic. I would hazard to guess there are a whole lot of people who lived under threat of nuclear annihilation that would have died if not for the threat. (For completeness, here's a link to war casualty estimates for the 1800's and for all centuries previous to that.
I like the goals of the IAEA. I like non-proliferation. I'm not overly afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union, put there is cause for concern, simply because nobody seems to be able to keep track of the keys to the storeroom. But I'm fine with India, Britain, France, and even Israel, all of whom I think would use nuclear weapons purely as a deterrent and will tend to the technologally responsibly barring their use. Even Pakistan, which is on the edge politically, and North Korea, which is way out there, know mutual assured destruction awaits them if they use their weapons. Both of these two, however, have issues with proliferation.
Non-state actors, and state-supported terrorism (read mid-east terrorists, because the IRA certainly wasn't working it's way up to nuclear bombs) rightly scare us and need constant attention from the IAEA and everyone else in a position to lend a hand. Nuclear disarmament isn't going to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists any more than outlawing handguns has kept handguns out the hands of London thugs. I have on hand a link about Canadian handgun violence, so I offer that rather than doing any googling.
Anyway, it's hard to argue after 60 years of state security that we should return to the 19th century world of state borders in constant flux depending on who had the largest group of 18 to 25 year olds in uniform.
The Nobel Peace Prize was announced today. From a field of 199, the committee chose Mohammad ElBaradei.
First, where did they come up with 199 names? I can't think of 199 newsmakers for the years, let alone 199 people who have done a thing to improve peace in the world.
I think perhaps the award is degenerating to the level of a Technical Oscar. You know, those awards given to the individual who invented a better zoom lens, or the SteadyCam mount. Great inventions, I'm sure, but not the awards the public came to see.
Similarly, when the best candidate you can find is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a guy who is just doing his job, the Nobel Peace Prize may be sinking.
I didn't break my long silence to criticize the Nobel committee, however. They're just a bunch of guys doing their job too, after all.
My problem is this quote from the Nobel Committee in an ABC News International story:
He said he jumped to his feet and hugged and kissed her in celebration. The Vienna-based IAEA had been a favorite from a list of 199 Nobel candidates in a year marking 60 years since the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
The Nobel Committee expressed hope that the award would spur work to outlaw atomic weapons.
Some people, loving ideas more than reality, have no ability to reason. Post Hiroshima, there has been no use of atomic weapons on people. We test to avoid affecting animals, even (perhaps in fear of a Godzilla vs. Gamelon future.)
Nuclear weapons finally found the limit of the definition of "unlimited warfare". Sixty years later, we have had no repeat of the two world wars, or of such wide-ranging wars as the Napoleonic. I would hazard to guess there are a whole lot of people who lived under threat of nuclear annihilation that would have died if not for the threat. (For completeness, here's a link to war casualty estimates for the 1800's and for all centuries previous to that.
I like the goals of the IAEA. I like non-proliferation. I'm not overly afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union, put there is cause for concern, simply because nobody seems to be able to keep track of the keys to the storeroom. But I'm fine with India, Britain, France, and even Israel, all of whom I think would use nuclear weapons purely as a deterrent and will tend to the technologally responsibly barring their use. Even Pakistan, which is on the edge politically, and North Korea, which is way out there, know mutual assured destruction awaits them if they use their weapons. Both of these two, however, have issues with proliferation.
Non-state actors, and state-supported terrorism (read mid-east terrorists, because the IRA certainly wasn't working it's way up to nuclear bombs) rightly scare us and need constant attention from the IAEA and everyone else in a position to lend a hand. Nuclear disarmament isn't going to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists any more than outlawing handguns has kept handguns out the hands of London thugs. I have on hand a link about Canadian handgun violence, so I offer that rather than doing any googling.
Anyway, it's hard to argue after 60 years of state security that we should return to the 19th century world of state borders in constant flux depending on who had the largest group of 18 to 25 year olds in uniform.
