Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
joojie

Any scots out there

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree, the states job is not to work for 'any and every type of citizens intrests', but it should not treat part of the country as a nuclear dumping ground. The point of nuclear deterent is that they will never be used, so why is the Scottish public spending half a million for it. You are right, by the way, England, Wales and Northern Ireland( forget about them?) do pay for nuclear deterant, but scotland pays half a million towards somthing we all want out of our country.

The army has a ligitamate use, for self defence (although we are unjustly using it for much more at the moment, unfortunatly), and nukes have no part to play in this. They are wepons of pure offence, imediate anialation, long lasting damage and self immolation from the volly of nukes that are guarenteed to be fired back at the aggressor. In short, the nillist dream.

You can't win wars with just defense, and if you can't win wars, you're gonna be attacked by pretty much everyone who feels like giving it a shot. After all, what do they have to lose?

Offense, and especially the threat of offense, is part of a sound national security strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is true that ofence does play a part, it can be fulfilled with conventional missles and bomber planes. The only use of nukes is to try and stop other countries using them, and as very few countries have them(UK, US, Russia, India, North Korea, China, France and pakistan) , and those who do ain't going to be attacking the UK any time soon, they are prety much usless. No countrie is ever going to use them after Hiroshima, so why spend millions of tax payer money on updating them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is true that ofence does play a part, it can be fulfilled with conventional missles and bomber planes. The only use of nukes is to try and stop other countries using them, and as very few countries have them(UK, US, Russia, India, North Korea, China, France and pakistan) , and those who do ain't going to be attacking the UK any time soon, they are prety much usless. No countrie is ever going to use them after Hiroshima, so why spend millions of tax payer money on updating them?

Because you can't even spell, let alone predict the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you can't even spell, let alone predict the future.

Yes, hit me where it hurts, my spelling ability. How about you focus on the issue at hand instead of attempting to avoid it by insulting me, or failing that, keeping quiet.

I don't need to predict the future to know that we don't want to waste millions on a program designed never to be used. no-one on earth would be stupid enough to actualy use a nuke in a combat context, M.A.D and all that, so what is the point in having them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing keeping the peace, then the first to disarm causes the ensuing nuclear war.

But you only need two countries with nuclear capability for M.A.D to work, plus no countries with nuclear capability are going to go to war with us any time soon. We are allied with the US and france, Russia wants to join the EU, and will not want to jeperdise the chance, North Korea has the warheads, but lacks the technology to succesfuly fire them, China and Indea have no problem with us, and there are lots of pakistani people living in the UK, so Pakistan will be unwilling to risk killing thear own people.

Edited by joojie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grames, even if they have no respect for the poeple living in the UK's life, the backlash from people living in pakistan would be enough for them to at least think twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grames, even if they have no respect for the poeple living in the UK's life, the backlash from people living in pakistan would be enough for them to at least think twice.

Yeah well, the goal is not to have them think twice before they do it anyway but to have them decide not to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well, the goal is not to have them think twice before they do it anyway but to have them decide not to do it.

True, but the time spent deciding would allow us to act in our defence, plus Pakistan would have no good reson to nuke us in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is true that ofence does play a part, it can be fulfilled with conventional missles and bomber planes. The only use of nukes is to try and stop other countries using them, and as very few countries have them(UK, US, Russia, India, North Korea, China, France and pakistan) , and those who do ain't going to be attacking the UK any time soon, they are prety much usless. No countrie is ever going to use them after Hiroshima, so why spend millions of tax payer money on updating them?

Why would no country use them after Hiroshima? The bombing of Japan was not only a spectacular strategic success, it was the most moral action in the history of warfare. If nuclear weapons are never used again, it won't be beause of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it will because of the taboo created by the Cold War during which any nuclear strikes would have likely lead to annihalation but which isn't the case when striking non-nuclear countries anymore.

And disputes over the technicals of the military defense of a country is probably one of the worst reasons to demand independence. It's not even a concern over the violation of individual rights, it is concern over how to best protect individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would no country use them after Hiroshima? The bombing of Japan was not only a spectacular strategic success, it was the most moral action in the history of warfare. If nuclear weapons are never used again, it won't be beause of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it will because of the taboo created by the Cold War during which any nuclear strikes would have likely lead to annihalation but which isn't the case when striking non-nuclear countries anymore.

And disputes over the technicals of the military defense of a country is probably one of the worst reasons to demand independence. It's not even a concern over the violation of individual rights, it is concern over how to best protect individual rights.

I would like to point this out now, I never clamed that nukes being in scotland is the main, or even a major reson to want independance, but an example of westminister seeing us as second-class citizens. All I was pointing out is that all the UKs nukes are dumped here, whilst charging us half a million for the honor!

I would like to point somthing out, in the Hiroshima nuking, 70,000 civilian, non combitant, inocent people were killed, and many more in the aftermath. how was this wholesale slaughter justified? There is a reson we are not allowed to just murder every civilian of a country we are at war with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point somthing out, in the Hiroshima nuking, 70,000 civilian, non combitant, inocent people were killed, and many more in the aftermath. how was this wholesale slaughter justified? There is a reson we are not allowed to just murder every civilian of a country we are at war with.

It ended the war early, averting the need to invade Japan itself and kill every last soldier in house to house battles. It reduced American causalties and overall Japanese causalties. That is complete justification.

Also, in modern total warfare the civilian population are economic participants in war and not apart from or innocent of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, hit me where it hurts, my spelling ability. How about you focus on the issue at hand instead of attempting to avoid it by insulting me, or failing that, keeping quiet.

Fair point. I guess, in hind sight, that lil' observation was more hurtful than funny. I did mean it as a joke though.

I don't need to predict the future to know that we don't want to waste millions on a program designed never to be used. no-one on earth would be stupid enough to actualy use a nuke in a combat context, M.A.D and all that, so what is the point in having them?

If winning a war depended on it, I would use a nuke in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even have to think about it. q.e.d.

And I'm pretty sure Mr. Truman would do it all over again too.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. I guess, in hind sight, that lil' observation was more hurtful than funny. I did mean it as a joke though.

If winning a war depended on it, I would use a nuke in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even have to think about it. q.e.d.

And I'm pretty sure Mr. Truman would do it all over again too.

Thank you for the appology, and I admit that I may have overreacted.

True, If winning a war depended on using a nuke, one should be used, ASUMING THE WAR IS JUST. The uk is at war with iraq etc, the point of which was to kill husain and end taliban rule. Husain is dead, and we are causing more destruction than the taliban. We would have more success with economic sanctions, trade embargos and other diplomatic solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point this out now, I never clamed that nukes being in scotland is the main, or even a major reson to want independance, but an example of westminister seeing us as second-class citizens. All I was pointing out is that all the UKs nukes are dumped here, whilst charging us half a million for the honor!

I would like to point somthing out, in the Hiroshima nuking, 70,000 civilian, non combitant, inocent people were killed, and many more in the aftermath. how was this wholesale slaughter justified? There is a reson we are not allowed to just murder every civilian of a country we are at war with.

I'm fully aware. In fact, I was in Hiroshima this year during the anniversary and visited the museum on the bombing. To put it simply, the killing of Japanese innocents was justified because the choice was between Japanese innocence or American innocence. It was the Japanese who created this stituation by initiating force against America. The innocent Japanese who were killed, were not the victims of America, which acted in self-defense, but of their own Emperialist regime as well as any complicit citizen who failed to oppose their regime and it's agression, even if only within their own minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fully aware. In fact, I was in Hiroshima this year during the anniversary and visited the museum on the bombing. To put it simply, the killing of Japanese innocents was justified because the choice was between Japanese innocence or American innocence. It was the Japanese who created this stituation by initiating force against America. The innocent Japanese who were killed, were not the victims of America, which acted in self-defense, but of their own Emperialist regime as well as any complicit citizen who failed to oppose their regime and it's agression, even if only within their own minds.

How do you know that all, or even a majority, of hiroshima victims were supporters of the regime? How do you know thatt an uprising was only prevented through fear?

I am not claiming that this is the case, but only that you can't blame the citizens of a country for actions commited by the goverment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... you can't blame the citizens of a country for actions commited by the goverment.
In Democracies -- not just western but even most third-world democracies -- you can definitely blame voters in the aggregate. Of course there could be many voters who are paragons of virtue, but democracies get governments they deserve.

Also, remember that mass movements were behind Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Khomeini.

Further, across the board, a huge majority of the world's population supports the use of government force against individual rights. They do not seek total tyranny, but principles have a way of asserting themselves in concrete actions and concrete politicians. Sometimes they lead -- step-by-step-by-step -- toward increased use of government force. A majority of the world's population shares this tiny seed of culpability. Needless to say, this does not mean one set of culpable people should have the right to bomb another set of such people. However, neither should any of them expect that they will cry out for individual rights only when it suits them.

Finally, it is really important to resist leaders who promise to use force. Hitler and the others mentioned did not hide their intent. Yet, Hitler was voted into office. There is a point at which resisting these people is not suicide. After that, it becomes too late. And, if that leader turns against a foreign country who then turn around and bomb your cities...blame your tyrant, not the other guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...blame your tyrant, not the other guy.

I agree, but then why was hiroshima targeted instead of where some goverment higher ups are (not the emporer himself of course or who would surrender). Being nuked is a punshment way out of proportion to electing a tyrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not claiming that this is the case, but only that you can't blame the citizens of a country for actions commited by the goverment.

War is inherently collective. Blame has nothing to do with it, everyone is at risk in war.

I agree, but then why was hiroshima targeted instead of where some goverment higher ups are (not the emporer himself of course or who would surrender). Being nuked is a punshment way out of proportion to electing a tyrant.

Hiroshima was targeted to destroy war industry. Sparing Tokyo left the threat of escalating the destruction further, creating a motive to surrender to save the city.

War is not about individual justice. Thinking in terms of individuals being punished for electing tyrants is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say here that I will be backing out of the discusion, as I realy don't know much about the ethics of war.All I wanted was to know whether there are any Scottish O'ists, and it is clear that the discusion has veared WAY of course (how did it even end up here :geek: ?) You can continue to discuss it all you want, but I will take no more part in an argument I am not qualified to argue beyond my personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...