The Dullness Problem

Something I note in Heads in the Sand is that one impediment to undertaking a reasonable response to 9/11 is that, psychologically speaking, it feels as if the response should somehow be proportionate to the devastating emotional impact of the attacks. And when you contemplate the possibility of something even more horrible, like a nuclear attack on a city, then it seems like the preventive measures taken should, again, be incredibly dramatic. And yet the nitty-gritty of serious non-proliferation policy is deadly dull.

Consider, for example, "Multilateralism as a Dual-Use Technique: Encouraging Nuclear Energy and Avoiding Proliferation", a recent paper done by John Thomson and Geoffrey Forden. They're writing about an incredibly important issue. For the non-proliferation regime to work, the majority of states who are neither "rogue" proliferators nor official Nuclear Weapons States need to be on board with the non-proliferation regime. But designing a regime that adequately safeguards their interest in civilian nuclear technology without opening the door to too much proliferation is difficult to do.

What Jeffrey Lewis has to say on the subject here is kind of a mouthful, and he's deliberately keeping things simple whereas Thomson and Forden are boring deep into the details. And at the end of the day, the result is a paper you probably don't want to read unless you have some kind of professional obligation to follow this issue. Certainly reading and writing about it doesn't help you take out your frustration and anger at the horrible things that terrorists have done, nor does it give you good grounds on which to impugn the masculinity of your political opponents. But it is vitally important to actually stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

Comments

Something I note in is that one impediment to undertaking a reasonable program of diet and exercise in order to lose weight is that, psychologically speaking, it feels as if the response should somehow be proportionate to the devastating emotional impact of being morbidly obese.

And when you contemplate the possibility of something even more horrible, like a sudden fatal heart attack, then it seems like the preventive measures taken should, again, be incredibly dramatic. And yet the nitty-gritty of maintaining a healthy lifestyle is deadly dull.

Posted by James Gary | April 15, 2008 11:34 AM

This is perhaps an isolated case, but back in the day I remember Bob Wright arguing that we should arm the UN inspection teams in Iraq so that they could coerce their way into facilities. So . . . That was pretty exciting.

Posted by southpaw | April 15, 2008 11:35 AM

The problem, Matthew, is that you're talking sense. Far too much sense. The average American doesn't have the heart or stomach for this much intricacy. They, like most human beings, have a guttural response to things like terrorism and the 9/11 attacks. You're right - they feel the need to respond in a way that is proportionate to the emotional devastation they felt on that day.

Unfortunately, one particular party (I won't say which) has realized that they can capitalize on that instinctual response and obtain political victory by exploiting it, rather than trying to explore the nuances of these difficult questions.

Posted by Trigger | April 15, 2008 11:35 AM

Nothing personal intended to the blogger, by the way. My point was that the general approach of judging policy on its emotional-catharsis-value is, on its face, a stupid one.

Posted by James Gary | April 15, 2008 11:39 AM

The psychological issue is interesting and important; I think there's also the more general issue that solving hard problems involves a lot of detailed work that most non-experts will find completely boring. For an example outside politics, take Matt's robot posts, which I enjoy very much. Robots are cool, but building them and programming them is very difficult and on occasion tedious beyond belief.

Posted by RSA | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM

Reagan's line "trust, but verify" exceeded the political limits of complexity. As a result, we've got "Exterminate the brutes!".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 15, 2008 12:23 PM

I think the total nuclear weapon nuclear abolition movement is comparatively lively. People can understand and get attached to the concept of a world where there is no chance anywhere will stuck by nuclear weapons. If the loose nukes issue, was incorporated into a larger agenda regarding nuclear weapons then I think people could get “excited” about the issue.

Of course once you get into the details it gets boring, but that’s how a lot of issues are. Some conservatives may want to stay in Iraq forever, but I doubt they’re reading the updated Army counter insurgency manual or even something more basic like the wikipedia page on the sunni-shia split.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM

Not only are such subjects booo-ooooring but it distracts us from all the shiny twinkling lights down at the arcade. Or to switch metaphors in midstream, we are too busy watching the parade to notice that our homes have been set on fire. I just want grab a journalist who is writing about orange juice or bowling and slap their faces sharply and point them at the torture memos or cratering economy or any other of the multitude of neglected crises and scream at them until their ears bleed, "DAMMIT, THIS SHIT'S IMPORTANT!!!!!"

Posted by justawriter | April 15, 2008 12:32 PM

Each successive administration has said that somehow the threat of nuclear terrorism would be eliminated, but it has not. And it's not surprising then that people get bitter, they cling to bombing or war or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-UN sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Posted by Njorl | April 15, 2008 12:54 PM

Something I note in Heads in the Sand...

Heads in the Sand? What is that, a book or something? Did you write it? Is it for sale? Where can I get a copy?

Posted by FearItself | April 15, 2008 5:39 PM

"it feels as if the response should somehow be proportionate to the devastating emotional impact of the attacks."

As Gary noted, that's the problem. As long as you chimps like to respond emotionally to survival-oriented matters, you're...not going to survive.

FearItself: You can buy the book in Pyongyang, North Korea, as of today. Look for Hwang Hung Lo's Bookstore on Kim Street.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 7:21 PM