Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Cyberdyne's Journal: Reading list 14

Journal by Cyberdyne
Here. I found a paper copy in a bookstore on Saturday, but it seemed too expensive for a slim paperback; the online version is 100% cheaper :)

Fascinating reading, particularly when it traces the origins of the US-Europe divide; the conclusion may come as a surprise (or nasty shock) to some...

This discussion was created by Cyberdyne (104305) for Friends and Friends of Friends only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reading list More

Reading list

Comments Filter:
  • It's really a very good read. I encourage everybody to actually read it.
  • He's arguing more or less what I've been arguing for years: that Europe and America still very much need each other, even after the Cold War and after 9-11 -- and that the Bush Administration took far too harsh a line with the Europeans after 9-11 in the name of "resisting constraints". Yet you and I have traded blows on that subject numerous times. Er?

    It is true that the Bush administration came into office with a chip on its shoulder. It was hostile to the new Europe -- as to a lesser extent was the Cl

    • Even after September 11, when the Europeans offered their very limited military capabilities in the fight in Afghanistan, the United States resisted, fearing that European cooperation was a ruse to tie America down.

      But, by the author's own arguments, this is exactly what Europe could be expected to do. America's fear of a ruse is quite reasonable, because Europeans are unwilling to stand astride the Hobbesian and Kantian worlds. A Europe that pathelogically mistrusts power can not be trusted to aide p

      • But, by the author's own arguments, this is exactly what Europe could be expected to do. America's fear of a ruse is quite reasonable, because Europeans are unwilling to stand astride the Hobbesian and Kantian worlds.

        Yet as he also pointed out, after 9-11 European members of NATO went out of their way to offer assistance -- military, diplomatic, intelligence, the whole nine yards. Even in the Iraq crisis, several European nations did quite a lot to help the US -- maybe not with boots-on-the-ground in Iraq

      • Even after September 11, when the Europeans offered their very limited military capabilities in the fight in Afghanistan, the United States resisted, fearing that European cooperation was a ruse to tie America down.

        But, by the author's own arguments, this is exactly what Europe could be expected to do. America's fear of a ruse is quite reasonable,

        The author says that that is a reasonable conclusion, but then he goes on to say that it is a wrong conclusion in his opinion.

        Americans are powerful enough

  • The psychology of weakness is easy enough to understand. A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative -- hunting the bear armed only with a knife -- is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn't need to?

    This perfectly normal human

    • I've always believed in one of the principle messages of this piece. In my own words: The doves can live peacefully because the hawks are protecting them. The doves can afford to live in their utopian world because it exists within the bubble of protection provided them by the realist hawks who sacrifice their blood to preserve it.

      Same here, and the core reason I liked the book. This looks very much like a parasitic relationship to me, though, with the doves getting protection and the hawks getting screwe

      • This looks very much like a parasitic relationship to me, though, with the doves getting protection and the hawks getting screwed.

        It's for this reason that a lot of people support the military draft. The thinking is that everyone should have to sacrifice for their freedom. Nobody gets a free ride. (Obviously, there are some legitimate exceptions to a draft.) What do you think of that?

        I don't know if I'd say that the hawks are getting "screwed." The book points out that the hawks like being hawks. Americ

        • It's for this reason that a lot of people support the military draft. The thinking is that everyone should have to sacrifice for their freedom. Nobody gets a free ride. (Obviously, there are some legitimate exceptions to a draft.) What do you think of that?

          I dislike that idea strongly - partly for pragmatic reasons (volunteer armies are always more effective and dedicated than conscript ones), partly for moral ones (if you can get volunteers for a task, why coerce others into doing it instead?!). Making e

          • When other countries are defended by the DoD, why shouldn't they foot their share of the bill?

            Yes, let's send them a bill... itemizing expenses going back to WWI... in current dollars. :-) We could charge a defense tax^H^H^Hfee to the world.

            For reasons explained in the book, charging them would never happen. Europe probably couldn't foot the bill even if they wanted to. Europeans regard war as unnecessary hositility that only encourages others to retaliate with yet more hostility, so they would be angry

            • For reasons explained in the book, charging them would never happen. Europe probably couldn't foot the bill even if they wanted to.

              They could certainly foot an equal share - as of next month, the EU's GDP is $9.6t, against America's $10.5t.

              Europeans regard war as unnecessary hositility that only encourages others to retaliate with yet more hostility, so they would be angry at being asked to pay for something that they didn't want. To them, peace comes through highbrowed verbiage and scribbles on paper.

              • Heh, I didn't know you were European. They should all be like you. :-)

                Let me ask you some questions, then. Is the Tory Party really the only conservative party in Britain? I don't follow British politics, but I get the impression that its support is shrinking. Is that true?

                • Heh, I didn't know you were European. They should all be like you. :-)

                  :-) Not terribly keen on being called "European", but technically true if you ignore the American bit. (Part of my father's family came over from Chicago to keep the mad Germans at bay, then stayed.)

                  Let me ask you some questions, then. Is the Tory Party really the only conservative party in Britain? I don't follow British politics, but I get the impression that its support is shrinking. Is that true?

                  It's the only conservative party,

  • The United States, they argue, resorts to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in inte

Slashdot Top Deals

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Close