Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is such a tired reply. The peace prize is not part of the same group as the other awards, and a significant difference in the peace award is that intent is awarded not results.

The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award despite nuke deterrance doctrice being related to the least amount of wars in any century since WW2.

But his platform of deescalation and his plans for american foregin diplomacy were rewarded. He ultimately failed to reach those goals (specially with the escalation on Afghanistan and the emergence of groups like ISIS), but tbh the Iran agreement and the Pacific trade agreement, killed and buried by the next administration, would have created a massive buffer and solution for the 2 hotspots we currently experience around the middle east (where terrorism is largely sponsored by Iran) and the Taiwan takeover by the CCP (would also be partially neutralised by the Pacific trade talks).

He was naive, in the way the world was naive to the ability to sacrifice prosperity that some leaders are capable of. He underestimated how dumb and suicidal putin could be, he underestimated how much China would be willing to sacrifice in terms of potential, he underestimated how much violence was latent and capable in the middle east. but his nobel peace prize was due to his campaign running on nuclear proliferation treaties and closer relationships with the muslim world which had been entirely antagonistic since Bush




> This is such a tired reply. The peace prize is not part of the same group as the other awards

It’s called a Nobel prize and it was established by the will of Alfred Nobel. So yes it’s the same


Well its the only one selected by Norway instead of Sweden, its also the only one selected on intent and not achievements. So its not the same in important ways


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The award shouldn't have been given for intentions, before he even did anything. We should not reward promises, but action. Even a long term member of the committee expressed regret in them giving it to Obama.


> Even a long term member of the committee expressed regret in them giving it to Obama.

That is nothing compared to past controversies.

People left the assembly and resigned when it was awarded to Kissinger and Arafat in the past. regret is way milder than calling the receipient a terrorist in the floor of the award ceremony


He received it before any of that. And Libya does actually cancel every point you mention by the way. Because it's actually not hard to have presidents not start wars at all- both presidents since Obama did just that.

And if the real Nobel prize doesn't want the confusion around its name to happen... it should do something about it?


> He received it before any of that.

which is why he got it based on his plans and not his actions

> and Libya does actually cancel every point you mention by the way.

it really doesnt. Lets begin with the main reasons, he was awarded the award for nuclear profileration agreements and a new american policy in the middle east. Lybia is not a nuclear power and its in north africa not the middle east.

secondly the military intervention of Lybia came at the behest of a UN security council resolution that put NATO in charge of securing the no fly zone to prevent Gadafi to bomb his own citizens after he had shot protestors during the arab spring. The NATO mission was led by France. The USA involvement ended the day the UN security council ended the mission despite the new Lybian goverment wanting them to remain. It is not Obama's fault that half the arab world exploded in protests in 2011, or that the UN voted to intervene, or that the French led mission was a bit of a clusterfuck. So no, Lybia does not affect any point I mentioned, or any of the reasons for the comittee to vote for him years earlier.

> it's actually not hard to have presidents not start wars at all- both presidents since Obama did just that.

Trump started a war, Iran just didnt follow through. Killing Soleimani is casus belli and Iran had every right to retaliate against america. The fact they didn't does not somehow exonarate Trump from his actions. That was way more belligerent than any action taken under Obama's 8 years.

Biden did not start any wars but 100% would have intervened if ISIS had begun under his presidency, the same way Obama did. Obama did not start any war against any country, he just had missions in countries america was already in, like Afghanistan, or contributed in international efforts like the Syrian civil war, or lybia intervention after Gadaffi's Un resolution.

His reputation as war mongering is artificial and designed by the same people who told Trump that if you dont test for Covid you get less cases. America started reporting less the drone strikes they carried, but carried them more often under Trump for example. Its the same sleight of hand that people use to say Sweden is worse off because they have more rape cases. They simply report them more often. Obama was more open than further admins on their interventions, that does not make it happen more or less often.

> it should do something about it?

They did not award it to Gandhi and gave it to Kissinger. The fact people still care about that award is bonkers


The amount of people who act like Obama is a war monger without understanding the situation he found himself in is shockingly high, especially on a website like this with its supposedly "educated" people.

Losing the TPP (Minus the IP parts)/Asia Pivot and the focus away from Nuclear Non Proliferation are terrifying. Obama is directly the reason why Myanmar had its democracy for as long as it did, and most people in South East Asia have not found anyone nearly as inspirational as him from America since 2016 and likely won't for awhile longer.

Obama was awesome, and his legacy has been unfairly malingered. He was not the "warmonger" president that revisionists like to portray him as.


> The amount of people who act like Obama is a war monger

Its deliberate. Conservative PACs designed that legacy and pushed it hard. Trump quickly stopped reporting drone strikes, so that way he could pretend Obama was a big bad shooting at everyone. Not reporting != not happening.

> Losing the TPP (Minus the IP parts)

I actually see the point to the IP parts. Its a complicated mess, but China has abused it in the past so being able to sue goverments has its uses. For example when Lenovo was accused of IP theft to HP computers, the CCP bought stock in lenovo and made it impossible to take them to trial. Those kind of abuses are an issue when you try and promote fair competition due to high RD costs.

Obviously the can of worms it opens is huge and an issue in itself, but I see the point in why it was added to the TPP agreement and can't imagine how hard it was to put that in, before Trump came and broke the whole thing.

> Obama was awesome

Dealing with the worst recession in a century, passing the largest US healthcare change in history, preventing the arab spring from exploding everywhere, stopping ISIS, swift to the pacific etc. The amount of achievements its hard to point out when after that came a circus clown who would salute north korean generals.


> The least amount of wars in any century since WW2

:/


We still have a decade or so to get back to average

Also, WW2 being so utterly destructive, back to back after an arguably even worse global war, skews the stats a little.


Ww1 is not a global war. The Asian and pacific theatre is not in play. It is mostly an European war.

But it triggers ww2 because the treaty is too hard on Germany. And crazy people has its soil prepared for their madness.


> The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award

No, he didn't win the award, because MAD doctrine (aside from it being immoral) doesn't actually work in the real world.

It's an idealized model based on game theory, which doesn't deal with pesky complexities such as irrationality, salami tactics, short-range CBMs, anti-missile defenses, tactical nukes and so on. (That's why many of these things used to be banned by treaties, to continue to pretend that MAD is actually required for peace. In reality many nations do not have nukes and live in peace.)


> In reality many nations do not have nukes and live in peace.

not many of them are superpowers, or strategic interests of superpowers. See Taiwan, a country that until recently felt safe and at peace and is no longer unthreatened.

Most studies show that MAD allows for strategic peace for large superpowers and more regional wars for smaller countries. Ultimately it still decreases overall violence under all empirical studies on the subject.

The point I was making though was that the achivements of MAD are not measured when giving the award. However Israel and Palestine sitting down to talk in the 90s was, despite the talks ultimately going nowhere and being worse off now than before the Nobel Peace award


It does work, you just need credible trigger thresholds for the salami tactics, treat tactical nukes as strategic, and have enough nukes to punch through ABM.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: