It is a bit early to use a word like 'may' which indicates some possibility for the future development of some unknown technology such as interstellar means of travel. There is zero evidence for any such future developments and science fictional speculation does not count. Just as for climate change with the knowledge that climate has continuously changed on Earth where any preventive measures are costly and useless without a means to foresee the future, so preparing with the at present knowledge level of science for an alien invasion would be irrational and a total waste of money and human time.
Although some people on Earth do have what many in the USA might find to be alien beliefs, it should be possible to prepare for invasion from them at a reasonable cost without giving up individual liberties and the technology already exists for that, but the will to define some ideas held by those aliens as irrational and not tolerable does not look feasible due to so many in the USA holding similar ideas as valid knowledge for existence.

Ah but see here is where the context of assumptions comes into play. You are assuming there was an intent to conquer before leaving, and that the invasion force would launch from an origin. That provides a limited view which supports the argument, rather than looking at more possibilities.

It also assumes the act was an act of malevolence rather than one of rational thinking based in their alien intellect. In the case of a species which doesn't consider us a species worthy of consideration, the proverbial "we are but insects in their world" view. It would not malevolence to wipe us out to harvest the global resources or build an alien resort of the planet. They could be fully migratory. There may be other ways of crossing astronomic distances which we with our limited knowledge conceive of except in scifi- even ways science fiction hasn't considered.

Our biases guide our development. Consider the nation which built the first missile: Nazi Germany. The leaders of that country had a bias against the work of Einstein and his fellow Jewish scientists because of antisemitism. But in such a bias they pursued a different line of questioning and developed different technology.

As to it wiping themselves out, a different predatory species could be non-competitive among themselves. Consider a species which has a hive mind as an example. They would still be top predator, but never have the thought process of independence which we have. So they could easily be highly predatory and not "learned the lesson" we humans claim we need to learn.

And yet consider our own technological state. It isn't lack of knowledge which has kept us in our cradle, it is lack of aggregate will to go. Not in a star trek style, but we have had the knowledge needed for decades. Yet we haven't "learned to be pacifists".

There are many possibilities - the point of aliens is that they are alien. This is where reason comes into play. It is an unfounded assumption to say that they must be nonviolent because they are "advanced". A rational approach is to look at what we do know based on biology and ecology. These demonstrate that not only has the does the most technological advancement come from the predatory species, but also that the most destructive capacity does as well.

This means we can not rationally assume any aliens coming to earth would be benign. Hence rationality evaluation requires context, not assumptions of things against what we know.

A related alien invasion example is the assumption that mankind as a whole would unite against an alien threat. Something I see no evidence for. The idea that nobody in any government wouldn't try to jockey for "a better deal" for themselves is just as untenable. In that context it would be rational to try to get a better outcome for themselves or their country.

The argument could be perpetrated by socialists and advocates of forced altruism. They have been so successful thus far in controlling waste and conquering.

Unless there is some method to get near the speed of light so that the travel time for the travelers is shortened by relativistic effects and those who built the starship can wait 100s or 1000s of Earth years for a return on their investment, there is no chance of an invasion.
AS for being malevolent, that would depend on whether they learned anything by not destroying themselves in the development of the technology for interstellar travel, that has to be very energy intensive and far beyond just developing nuclear weapons and not wiping themselves out.

I'm prepared it for in that there isn't really an argument that any species capable of interstellar flight is benign. Indeed, there is quite a compelling one to the opposite. The notion that a civilization "sufficiently advanced enough" to conquer interstellar flight is "enlightened" is actually a fantasy concocted by dreamers.

I ask on what scientific basis do we expect such a species/civilization to be benign? The answer is usually blank stares combined with "well it just makes sense". Nope. What makes sense is that any species to advance technologically will share a critical trait with us: being the top predator for the planet. In all terrestrial observations the dominant species is the predator, not the prey. Thus, based on what we actually know, we should expect them to be of predatory origin. There is nothing scientifically validated we've seen yet which suggests that at some point predators 'evolve" out of being predatory by nature.

Ergo, the more likely scenario based on what we currently know is that any species to travel to earth will be of a predatory background, and likely the dominant predator from their planet. Now, there is a theoretical possibility that we could be found by a species trying to escape a predatory "alien" race, but that would affirm that there is no reason to believe that any species capable of interstellar spaceflight would thus be pacifist or "benign". Indeed such an event would expose the notion for the fantasy it is.

Not that I'm saying an invasion is incoming or imminent. I'm sure I'd be expelled from the high order of secret aliens for admitting to such 9and surely locked up by the puppeteers). Merely that the notion they would inherently be peaceful is entirely untenable. Thus in keeping with context, IF we take into consideration visitation by aliens, it would be entirely rational to be prepared for them to have descended from, and possibly still be, predatory by nature. ;) Now Hollywood aside, whether we could stand against them is another matter. ;)

Or they could machine intelligence which has been convinced that organics are a threat to the universe so they exterminate anything which rises to a given technological level. ;) (Ian Douglas FTW)

True enough. Although there cold be an argument that such aliens would likely be benign, not my argument, but an argument to prepare for. Mine would be more like, if they come in spacecraft (structural strength to weight 100x a ground vehicle) and have enough left in the tank to conquer us, they deserve it.

Hearing about the leader there seemingly executing his Generals and Scientists on a whim doesn't make him rational. China's leaders who are supporting him are just as crazy but more calculating. I'm sure that Kimmy boy will try to launch a nuclear missile at the the US on election day just to turn everything into chaos.

I think that Rand considered rational to mean with respect to reality.

"Rational does not mean smart"

Something many forget. Rationality also requires context. Often things we don't know would change our rational choice fi we knew them. This is what makes judging historical figures, notions, and actions difficult - we know things they did not know.

For example, many do not consider it rational to spend trillions of dollars on an "earth defense" system to protect against alien invasion. In our current context, it would not be rational given our other uses for that money and our current belief that the risk of alien invasion is non-existent. But if an alien invasion did occur, you can bet many would say it was not rational to build up planetary defenses. The difference is context informed by knowledge. This is similar to logic which is about the consistency of an argument, not the veracity of the conclusions.

absolutely. maybe even by the establishment right here...

Being rational is a concept that requires some deep knowledge of objective reality as well as the part within the brain called the mind. Having been born with a tabula rasa brain after conception with a complex scrambling of genes and 9 months of gestation and several years of somewhat randomly chosen training by parents, there has to form, to begin with , a simple model of reality within the mind, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. Whether the model is rational or not, depends upon years of possible evading facts and pretending to know about reality from the standpoint of parents and others. Unless the person is able to be honest under layers of mental crap, you get only a few who connect rational thought to objective reality. Even then there are few who can sustain that type of rational model all the time especially in a world of easy to accept memes finding little nooks and crannies too take roost and saying that it is too hard to be fully rational and besides I will lose friends or family or even my life, as in some really rotten countries of the world, if I stand alone. Doesn't leave much room for even the exceptional person to be rational or even know what is rational. Rand, for the most part and especially her metaphysics and epistemology, is an excellent place to learn what rational thought might entail. Not much hope for North Korea unless an accident happens with the nukes and the country is finally permitted to learn about liberty after the cleanup.

The headline displays the fallacy of conflating nations with the individual ruling them.

To all appearances, Kim Jong-Un would rather see North Korea nuked than see it become part of either China or South Korea. His behavior backs this up. The way he's going, he'll soon start throwing nukes at South Korea. The US will hit back with at least one. Then the fun begins.

This will not be good for anyone in North Korea except the dictator, but he doesn't care.

Rational does not mean smart. Kim Jong could live like a real king (in a country that could support a king) if he offered to reunite Korea in exchange for a being the king like the UK monarchy and immunity from prosecution.

Your comment could be applied to other countries, too, term.

Good note. The North Korean people put up with it because they don;t know any better.

Such was old dino's thinking while reading the article.
The globalist ideology the Great and Powerful Apologist has nothing to do with the self-interest of the USA.
His self-interest is more akin to that of dictator Kim Jung-un, though the latter communist is not an apologist.

Logical just means that it follows given a certain premise. A statement is only valid however, if it is a product of both substantiated premises and sound logic. Rational (at least for Objectivists) means logically valid not just logical.

Their self interest is maintaining their dictator at all costs. They do it by internal force, creating external fear with nuclear weapons, and the largesse of China.

Actually N Korea IS acting rationally if the purpose of its actions is to maintain its dictator. It gets supported by China, so it can forget about the people, it pursues nuclear bombs so it can scare the west into leaving it alone, and it DOES stay a dictatorship. Of course its not living independently, as it would crash if China let it float free. And eventually its people would rise up.

if a statement or action is not rational how can it be logical?

N. Korea is choosing a path that is very dangerous. Provoking with war-like intent in order to glean favors from powerful neighbors is not rational. Any collectivist society, especially one run by an inherited dictator is by its very nature irrational. Just because it has a coherent intent doesn't make it sane.

The authors comment..."States are irrational when they do not follow self-interest."
Was very interesting. How is the US policy of allowing completely uncontrolled immigration from Muslim and 3rd world hellholes rational. When you couple this with the immigration controls on educated people from western Europe[it seems that the more illiterate and non English speaking you are the more likely you are to get in!] you have a policy which seems self destructive at best and suicidal at worst.

The article is in error. Their behavior is not rational. Rationality is sustained and results in the respect of rights and freedoms. North Korean leaders are power-mongers seeking to put themselves and their interests first without recognizing either the rights or interests of others. Their behavior may be logical in a short-term sense, but it is not rational.

from their perspective the answer is yes.

north Koreans leaders just like the muslim leaders only want to destroy what was started by the men of the UNITED STATES versus trying to emulate us. the real problem that WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES face is a government that we put in place that is emulating those fools.