On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Chan Wei Lik wrote:

I lifted this out of Tom Clancy's Executive Orders.
Those of you familiar with the story may recall that, at the end of the novel, 
President Ryan orders the execution of the Iranian head-of-state for waging war 
on the US, and promises to do the same to anyone else who tries to do so again.
Since reading it, I've been thinking: What if this protection was extended to 
other nations? What if the United States promises to execute any national 
leader who declares war on a nation protected by the US?

A titanic diplomatic uproar and probably the US becoming diplomatically 
isolated like never before.  This promise would make the vietnam war look 
like one of the US's smarter moments.

At the least, I think that it would make despots hesitate to invade their 
neighbours if they knew that they personally would die for doing so. The best 
result would be that there would be no more war, because everyone who can 
declare it is too scared to do so.

Policies of this sort have been used intermittently throughout history, 
the Romans regularly executed captured leaders of broken nations, 
so did the mongols.  It didn't stop people trying to fight them.

In the modern world it *might* lower the number of wars, but probably 
not.  Most despots would gamble on being able to do a "vietnam" and 
outlast the US, or more likely a "Pol Pot" and go into a comfortable 
exile in a friendly nation if the tide starts to turn against you.  Nobody 
picks a fight with the USA unless they have too, even today, even if you 
win the losses will be a pinprick to the US's overall strength (in all 
but a few cases) while your losses will be horrendous.

To be even more effective, the protection can be modified so that if the 
protected nation wages war, the protector is oblidged to execute their leader 
also. Then the protection is provided at the descretion of the protector 
nation, and can be withdrawn at any moment. I foresee that weaker nations will 
seek protection from several strong nations, nations that CAN carry out the 
threat of executing an aggressor's leader. Also, the provision of this 
protection will be at the core of diplomatic negotiations.

How does this differ from the cold war?  The obvious response is for the 
other nation to seek the protection of people like Russia and China, and 
while no one doubts that the US is stronger than either, or both, of 
these nations, no would doubt that the US would back down if they 
threatened war.  It simply wouldn't be in the best interests of the US to 
take them on over a random despot.

Think about it, don't like the way their goverment is running the country? 
Withdraw protection and they will have to start worrying about their hostile 
neighbours...

So they turn to China, Europe or Russia for arms sales - ruthlessly 
raping the wealth of the country to pay for it.  If the US threatens more 
they turn to Russia or China for protection, or perhaps plead US bullying 
at the United Nations.

It doesn't kill the greed that makes leaders wage war, but at least it ensures 
their punishment for the crime. It also can't stop things like local 
insurrection or civil war, other than that I think it's perfect.

Are you really this out of touch with how the world works?

But I'm sure there has to be a loophole in my thinking. A loophole which a mean 
leader thinks he can use to conquer another nation while escaping the wrath of 
its protector. That's where the story is, and that's where I could use ideas 
from you.
So got any?

Simple.  You stage provocations against the target nation, until their 
government is forced to attack you to retain credibility.  Then you go 
around pointing out that *THEY* started it.  You might not win, but you 
are safe from the death penalty.

Or perhaps you could just infiltrate guerillas (so they wear uniforms 
made in your country and carry guns with your trademark.  Trade is free 
after all) and then deny that you are supporting the guerillas, or 
perhaps you simply claim to be supporting a local guerilla campaign (it 
worked for North Vietnam, although they did have Chinese and Russian 
protection). 

I strongly suggest that you study how the world of international 
relations really works, not how certain shortsighted people *WANT* it to 
work.  There are good reasons the US has a public stance against trying 
to kill head's of state - and equally good reasons why they occasionally 
ignore it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Major"                     |  "Funny Games, Strange Cartoons, Confusing
David Bateson                   |     Computers and too many Books!  No 
                                |     wonder you're weird."
major@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au     |       - My Sister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|******************  E N D  *  O F  *  M E S S A G E  ***********************|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------