Comments on: Dad’s Nuke

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:51:14 +0000

As it happens, I had a back and forth on this very issue of the Second Amendment and private nuclear weapons with libertarian Eric Raymond, recently enough that it's still the most recent post on his blog. You can read his explanation of why, without bobbles, a ban on private nukes is less sensible than banning handguns. Private nukes? No worries! Don't neglect the comments. I had a brief sputter here.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:14:36 +0000

Henry, “I still haven’t seen a direct response from a libertarian to this particular argument of Vinge’s (as I interpret it).” After a little research, I found that David Friedman has something to say about this; not directly about nukes, but about the legality of the draft. Briefly, and in my words, he argues that he can easily see situations where the draft would be the right thing to do. In other words, he would support (in certain cases) a coercive system that violated “typical” libertarian rights. I’m not sure, but I think you can extrapolate Friedman’s argument to support, again in some cases, a coercive system banning individual ownership of nukes, while keeping some around for defense against tyranny (not having read Vinge, I don’t know quite how it works, but I can imagine.) I think Friedman uses a straightforward consequentialist argument, but rights-based arguments can work too; most have a “catastrophic” exception to rights. In other words, different rules apply to planet-destroying situations than to ordinary situations. (Just in case you think so, this doesn’t reduce to consequentialism.) It becomes difficult, though; you need to define catastrophe, say what rules apply, etc. But it isn’t particularly hard to get libertarian arguments on this sort of thing.

By: Charlie Stross

Charlie Stross — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:08:38 +0000

Carlos: quite right.My pet objection, I guess, which I didn’t articulate as a general one, is that in addition to the scope for discussions to degenerate into fine story points, authors almost invariably posit too many developments to make it a useful medium for enquiry. I mean, we’re in the business of telling a story, not writing a political manifesto (with one or two dubious exceptions—L. Neil Smith springs to mind). Not only do SF authors tend to shovel in several plot McGuffins in order to keep things bubbling unpredictably, they tend to make things happen for reasons of plot, pacing, character development, and climax—which is anathema to any sane political discourse. (I’m kind of glad I don’t live in a world with a literary plot. For several years Hitler managed to fool a lot of Germans into thinking that they did, and look what happened to them …)

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:37:46 +0000

Hey Charlie, good to see you here.

But that just leaves me to make my main point: has anyone actually read “The Ungoverned”?

Well, yes. I mentioned bobbles myself. But I decided Henry's premise was more interesting than the fine details of Vinge's story which provided the seed for it. This is another reason I feel adducing examples from science fiction is so poisonous to discussing libertarian ideas. All of a sudden, the dialogue shifts to comparing fine points of story details, with all the nitpicking rancor that can generate:

"Well, after Crisis on Infinite Earths [1], Superman's powers were way reduced. So the Hulk could easily take him now."

"But not to the Hulk's pathetic levels. Superman can still lift up buildings. Idiot."

"Who are you calling an idiot, idiot? The Hulk held up an entire mountain in Secret Wars!"

"Didn't Alan Moore use Swamp Thing as a metaphor for steroid abuse?"

Both: "Who the hell are you??"

Et cetera. I know you've seen this happen. C. [1] If this (or other fanboy details) is incorrect, I don't care; it's not relevant to my point. Which is my point.

By: gamini

gamini — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 02:30:11 +0000

At long last, robin green cuts to the heart of the problem. All speculation about stable MAD scenarios rests on the assumption that the individuals involved are rational, deterrable actors. The libertarian promise of general security can be realized only to the extent that those who control devastating force place supreme value on their own survival, within a time horizon sufficient to encompass the prospect of retaliation. In the case of nation states, we hope this holds true (with an uneasy glance toward Kim Jong Il). In the case of private individuals, it is not even approximately true: human beings, for a whole host of reasons including but not limited to criminal psychosis, exhibit disregard for the proportionality and consequences of their actions, routinely and in large numbers. If mass casualty weapons were easily obtainable, such irrational actors would destroy human civilization before the libertarian intelligentsia finished calculating their pareto-optimal strategies.

By: Thomas Nephew

Thomas Nephew — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 02:27:42 +0000

@micha, A well-regulated militia may not be the only reason to assert gun rights. But it’s the only one in the Constitution. It’s a good thing, too, because as far as I see that’s the main constitutional barrier between us and VingeWorld. My right to a well regulated militia is co-equal to, not inferior to, someone else’s right to bear arms. Micha is right to worry about the thought exercise, because it shows the way towards banning high-caliber, rapid-fire assault weapons too. Which would be a very good thing.

By: Charlie Stross

Charlie Stross — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:40:35 +0000

(Kudos to PNH for getting in a mention of Ken’s Fractional Reserve nuclear deterrence before I read to the bottom of this thread …) But that just leaves me to make my main point: has anyone actually read “The Ungoverned”? Vinge’s story is explicitly science fictional, and it’s set in a future where in addition to libertarian communities with privately-owned nukes there exist devices for generating “bobbles”—cheap, impermeable force fields within which time stops for a period of seconds to megayears. To the extent that any SF story is a thought-experiment, I can’t help thinking that this whole thread is inapposite because the bobbling technology is nuke-proof; it provides a functional defense against weapons of mass destruction (and indeed in the prequel novel “The Peace War” red-blooded free-range libertarians armed with bobbling machines tackle the rather inept planetary Peace Authority). Vinge indeed makes the point about a basement nuke being a gun pointed at the head of all your neighbours—they exist in the world of his story, but the general response to their use (without a suitable justification, like an invasion by degenerate second-handers—oops, liberal democrats wih tanks) tends to be a lynch mob. And furthermore, he posits that a society that tolerates personal nukes is not going to be a dense urban community. Bluntly, as a starting point for analysing the theoretical role of WMDs in libertarian society “The Ungoverned” is rather deficient. Maybe Vinge knows something I don’t, and his bobble technology really exists, but in their absence all we’re left with is an interesting SF story that says, “what if nukes—the ultimate personal offensive weapon—could be countered by bobbles—the ultimate personal defensive weapon?” Which is a whole ‘nother kettle of eels.

By: Jonathan Wilde

Jonathan Wilde — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:29:15 +0000

Building from Belle’s post on end-state anarcho-libertarianism, a question for the floor. Everyone’s favorite libertarian SF author, Vernor Vinge, makes the case for private ownership of nuclear weapons as an important bulwark of liberty in his short story, “The Ungoverned” (it can be found in his recent Collected Stories). That is simply not true. I believe you have misinterpreted the story (if you have read it). Vinge does not believe anyone, including governments ought to own nuclear weapons. This was pointed out in many statements made by residents in the Ungoverned lands:

[Will Brierson] knew about nukes - perhaps more than the New Mexicans. There was no legal service that allowed them and it was open season on armadillos who advertised having them...

and

They probably didn't realize that Schwartz would have been lynched the first time he stepped off his property if his neighbors had realized beforehand that he was nuke-armed.

Speaking as an anarcho-leaning libertarian, I have written on this topic before at Catallarchy, and do not believe nuke ownership is justified by any individual, including those individuals who are part of governments, at least when in the vicinity of other individuals whose life or property is put at threat by the existence of those nukes: Private Ownership of Nukes Private Ownership of Nukes II

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:19:26 +0000

I think what I will dub Bostrom’s Theorem is apposite here: “If everyone is able to access nuclear weapons, the end result will likely be human extinction.” Justification: Suppose there are 10,000 homicidal maniacs in the world at present. Suppose each nuke kills on average 1,000,000 people. Then the world population would be almost or totally eliminated by those homicidal maniacs setting off their nukes. Even if the number of maniacs who are homicidal in the relevant way is only like 2 people – it would still be a calamity.

By: rea

rea — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:17:30 +0000

“The founders anticipated ‘letters of marque and reprisal’ — that is, weapons of mass destruction (ships of the line and privateers) in private hands” A completely ahistorical post, I’m afraid. The example you give of a privateer destroying a city (Francis Drake)is about as far removed in time from the founding fathers as we are. And he didn’t use a ship to destroy a city—he landed troops, captured the town, and burned it. You’ll be hard pressed to find an example of a ship of the line used as a privateer. Heck, even the US government didn’t think it could afford to build them. And ultimately, you’ve got to remember the phrase “well-regulated” appears in the amendment. While there is an argument that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own weapons, not merely the right of the various states to organize militias, there is no respectable argument that leads to a conclusion that the government doesn’t have the right to regulate possession and use of arms.

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:36:04 +0000

I enjoy Vinge, but I’m surprised that in forty comments nobody’s mentioned the time-sharing approach to nuclear deterrence in Ken MacLeod’s “Fall Revolution” novels. For a price, the tiny breakaway Central Asian “International Scientific and Technical Workers’ Soviet” will undertake to nuke anyone who attacks one of its clients. In the same way that banks don’t actually have to own money equal to all their commitments, this enables the world to get by with significantly fewer actual nuclear missiles. This seems as plausible as any other model for the privatization of nuclear weapons. Of course, it does eventually result in the vaporization of Berlin, but that’s market forces for you.

By: TomD

TomD — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:17:42 +0000

The defensive weapons needed to dissuade powerful collectives from exerting their power over individuals must meet several criteria. They should be devastating and effective; precisely targeted; and capable of a proportionate response to threats. It’s hard to see what kind of system can really work. If the individual had a button which could detonate a proportionate number of lethal, precisely-targeted weapons at a place of his or her choosing, that might do it. In case the individual were unwilling to use lethal force against a non-lethal threat, there would be the option of non-lethal incapacitating agents (i.e. chemical weapons!). Nukes are inadequate for several reasons: mainly the issue of targeting, already mentioned, and the issue of proportionality in response. If your only response is one that will kill tens of thousands and ruin millions of square miles of the environment, you may be unwilling to deploy it in response to minor provocations. If all you have is a nuke, what are you going to do if someone shoves you off the sidewalk? You need, in addition, an array of weapons with a smaller footprint, with effective delivery systems. This would add up to quite a big backpack. Shoulder-fired missiles could be one element of this array, although it should be noted that you need a certain amount of physical strength and dexterity to aim and fire them successfully. We wouldn’t want the physically weak to be disadvantaged in self-defence, would we? A stable anarchy through personal WMD mutually assured destruction? Could be, but not with today’s technology.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:04:20 +0000

Mill was weighing legitimate (rat poison) uses against illegimate (murder) uses. He accepted tightly-drawn restrictions on poisons designed to prevent them being used to kill people. But Mill is too sensible to be regarded as a representative of the libertarian position (at least at any time after his youthful crisis). What characterises libertarianism (more than even the most doctrinaire Marxism) is the willingness to push arguments to their logical conclusions, without questioning the premises. Mill wasn’t afraid of going against the conventional wisdom but he never accepted conclusions that were patently silly.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:56:28 +0000

Nukes and WMDs are a special case – I’m sure the founders would have allowed a ban on poison weapons, the closest contemporary equivalent. I’m not so sure they wouldn’t; JS Mill has a long passage on On Liberty in which he discusses the issue of widely available poisons (suggesting it was a live one at the time) and comes down in favour of legally available poison (suggesting it was the libertarian position at the time).

By: shelby

shelby — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:12:38 +0000

Micha: “what makes a state a more responsible owner of nuclear weapons than a private security organization?” At root, the fact that the state probably has to convince more people to allow the use of nuclear weapons, before they actually get used. Even if you stipulate a dictatorship, you at best create a situation similar to a security organization, in terms of how many people have to sign off on creating centralized decision-making on use of the nukes. In any other governmental structure, more people will have knowledge – and approval rights – regarding the authorization to use nukes. In general I would expect this to make nukes less readily used, though maybe someone with more knowledge of group-think will say otherwise.