Aiyaiyah

Gerrard's player has some rather interesting views on international relations. On the way out of seminar we were having a debate over conflict between stronger and weaker countries. Says he, if A has a bigger gun than B it is A's right to kill B as it is in A's best interest, eliminating competition with B and preventing B from killing A first. Says I, it would not benefit A, as it would be a waste of time, resources, and, in the event of retaliation, lives. Says he, states act this way. Says I, since C, D, and E, could overpower A by banding together, why haven't they done so? Says he, because there would be too many internal conflicts to have an effective alliance. Says I, given the case of two equal powers, given that A knows B is capable of responding in kind to an attack, A will not attack B, and vice versa. Says he, this is why deterrence is important, and that if A has the opportunity to wipe out B it will. Says I, why? Says he, so that A will have less competition on the world stage. We eventually took this all the way to A being the only country left standing on the globe and on top of the heap by default, at which point I brought up the, under his philosophy, likely occurrence that the citizens of A who want the country run differently would start civil wars. Says he, so kill them. Says I, it is not in humanity's best interests for us to blow each other up. Says he, you live in a utopia! Says I, you live in a radioactive desert! 

Now if only I could get this engaged during the seminar.