This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0002764208316227v1 51/9/1339    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Google Scholar Articles by Mueller, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Security, Muscularity and Morality

Three Comments on Etzioni

Ohio State University, Columbus

Democracy has become increasingly accepted over the last two centuries, but the process has mostly been one of persuasion, fashion leadership, and luck, not forceful evangelism. Although democracy can sometimes be established by force, this has generally not worked well when favorable conditions are absent. Intervention for the purpose of restoring basic security where it is severely threatened or under attack is unlikely to happen much, held back by a lack of interest, an extremely low tolerance for casualties, and an increasing aversion to long-term policing in the international community. The obsessive bipartisan quest to control nuclear proliferation— particularly since the end of the cold war—has been substantially counterproductive and has often inflicted major costs on innocent people. Rather than killing large numbers of foreigners in the service of worst case scenario fantasies, one way to reduce the likelihood some countries would go nuclear would be to stop threatening them.

Key Words: nuclear • proliferation • democratization • intervention • security

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?