Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who should control nukes in a war?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In this interview Peikoff says that the civilian government declare wars but once declared the military takes over and has complete control over strategy and how the war is fought, including whether or not nuclear weapons are used. Peikoff also mentions that the generals would have to take into account the damage nuclear radiation could do to neighbouring countries. This last point seems like a good argument for the civilian government to control the nukes, or at least have a veto power over them, because if the weapons used in the war goes outside the theatre of operations it becomes a political matter. If the generals decided to use nukes in Afghanistan because that would be the best way to win the war but the radiation spread to Russia, then things would get extremely bad, so it seems like having the civilian government there to provide a safeguard against overzealous generals, such as the one who wanted to nuke North Vietnam, is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to create a special ethical theory for nukes. The military should have control over how they achieve the end which was given to them by the civilian government. You do not see city councilmen telling police officers how to arrest criminals. Well, you shouldn't. The civilian government has the responsibility to decide what the nature of the military is going to be -- it selects the officers, it provides the equipment, it provides the money. It also creates the legal context for the military to operate in (Congress writes the CMJ; Congress should determine the general rules of engagement). When the military is then charged with the task of eliminating the red dictators of North Korea or the mullahs of Iran, then they do what they are supposed to do, within the context of the law.

The fundamental question, in my opinion, is whether it is proper the task the military to act contrary to its proper nature. It is clear to me that it is within the domain of "proper military action" to forceably dismantle the theocracy of Iran (no further restrictions), and it is not

within the domain of "proper military action" to lob firecrackers at the mullahs, engage in "regime building" and other such so-called humanitarian activities, and restrict the type of force used in Iran to foot soldiers who are only allowed to fire when fired upon. If you do not want the mullah regime removed, then do not declare war. Wait until you have manned up enough to do what has to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe SWAT teams should be given cruise missiles? Or small tactical nukes? As long as they were tasked with fighting crime (by the civilian government), the means should be up to them, right?

The fact is that using nuclear weapons without causing massive collateral damage is next to impossible. Many military operations cause collateral damage anyway but at least their scale, the weapons used, make it avoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe SWAT teams should be given cruise missiles? Or small tactical nukes? As long as they were tasked with fighting crime (by the civilian government), the means should be up to them, right?
You clearly didn't read my reply. I suggest you do so, before advancing nutty ideas on this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly didn't read my reply. I suggest you do so, before advancing nutty ideas on this topic.

I read your reply, as you of course expect. Two or three times actually. You said the military should have control of how they achieve the ends given to them by the civilian government. I asked why the police force should not have similar control over what weapons they use to 'achieve the ends' given - you might want to answer that.

Proper military conduct involves minimizing collateral damage where possible and nuclear weapons are completely incompatible with this in practice. There is no special ethical theory involved it's just a matter of practical outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the military should have control of how they achieve the ends given to them by the civilian government.
I also said "It also creates the legal context for the military to operate in (Congress writes the CMJ; Congress should determine the general rules of engagement)." Maybe you don't understand what that means. So let me put it in simpler terms.

The police are supposed to investigate crimes. Therefore by your logic, they should use whatever means they can imagine to get a conviction, including torturing suspects into confessing. Yet we don't actually allow that. Why? Because the police operate within the law -- yes, there are laws that delimit legal police actions and illegal police actions. Within the confines of legal police action, the police should be allowed to pursue the specific goal that they have be told to reach, using any legal means.

Proper military conduct involves minimizing collateral damage where possible and nuclear weapons are completely incompatible with this in practice.
The first part is true, and the second part is complete nonsense. So I think we've identified the problem -- you have an irrational view of nuclear weapons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear weapons simply do not ever fall within this 'legal context' unless

a) they're acting as a nuclear deterrent

:P all the enemy military forces are conveniently grouped in an expansive, otherwise unpopulated area, which is very unlikely

We don't give the police tools which are inappropriate for their job - eg. artillery

Basically 'nuking Tehran,' or any city, should not be on the cards but I get the distinct impression some people here not only advocate the idea but take some perverse pleasure in ethically equivocating such mass-extermination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear weapons simply do not ever fall within this 'legal context' unless

a) they're acting as a nuclear deterrent

:P all the enemy military forces are conveniently grouped in an expansive, otherwise unpopulated area, which is very unlikely

You seem to be suffering from the mistaken impression that there is a moral imperative to only killed uniformed soldiers of the enemy regime. Where in the world could that possibly have come from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like from Ayn Rand? You know how she says respect the rights of fellow humans? ie. never initiate force? Well since many people in Tehran, the majority even, are not your enemies but rather victims of your enemies, you have to respect their rights. At the very least, try not to engage in their mass-extermination.

Maybe you thought she said 'fellow Americans' when she was talking about the rights of any people, anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be suffering from the mistaken impression that there is a moral imperative to only killed uniformed soldiers of the enemy regime. Where in the world could that possibly have come from?

Right. If a military is forcibly occupying a territory and imprisoning its citizens, I could see using Tyco's rationale, but in the case of Tehran, the citizenry are supporting and funding the military, and choosing to live and remain in the location, despite the threat it poses to their well-being. Any rights-respecting individual living in that location knows he has only two choices: get out, or topple the tyrannical regime, at his own risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like from Ayn Rand? You know how she says respect the rights of fellow humans? ie. never initiate force?
The force was initiated by Iran; this is retaliatory force.
Well since many people in Tehran, the majority even, are not your enemies but rather victims of your enemies, you have to respect their rights.
Here are two quotes to put in perspective how totally you misunderstand this aspect of Objectivism:

Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity"

The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

Ford Hall Forum 1976: "The Moral Factor"

Q
: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR
: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression--in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.

Please recall that the current dictator was actually elected by the majority. Thus there are no innocents in Tehran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand says the 'country' has no rights/authority but she didn't say the inhabitants lose all their rights - indeed their rights are inalienable. Please recall that Iran has not declared war against the US and indeed is a far cry from from posing any sort of threat to US sovereignty. Where do you stop? Nuke all of Libya because of their suspected involvement with the Lockerbie bombing? What about Bush's invasion of Iraq on the false premise that SH had WMDs. Should American cities be nuked?

There is no reason to create special ethical theories for nukes. It's wrong to shoot every civilian man, woman and child in a captured village during war, even more wrong to do it in a city, and still wrong if you use nuclear bombs instead of metal bullets.

How willingly you turn from Objectivist to would-be mass exterminator. It sickens me and seriously puts me off visiting this website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please recall that Iran has not declared war against the US and indeed is a far cry from from posing any sort of threat to US sovereignty.
Who cares? Regardless of whether there is an official declaration of war or whether Iran is threatening to send regular army troops, the US has the full right to forcibly overthrow the existing regime in Iran, because it has repeatedly initiated force.
Should American cities be nuked?
You are acting quite irrationally now. Think carefully about what you are advocating.
It's wrong to shoot every civilian man, woman and child in a captured village during war, even more wrong to do it in a city, and still wrong if you use nuclear bombs instead of metal bullets.
It's wrong to surrender to aggression, to be goddamned pacifists because of the possibility of killing innocent people; it is wrong to guarantee the killing of innocent people because the destruction of evil is not limited to those evil-doers who wear military uniforms. Who are these "innocents" that you're trying to protect?
It sickens me and seriously puts me off visiting this website.
Try to get your emotions under control. I'm nauseated at your evasions and overt pacifism, but I'm hoping (perhaps misguidedly) that you can eventually be made to see how libertario-pacifism is an evil philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyco,

It's important to the discussion that you read this article, so you are not confused about the position of your discussion partners:

Innocents in War? by Onkar Ghate

Here is a relevant quote. I encourage you to read the whole article for proper context and justification of the following. It isn't very long.

No truly innocent civilian in Nazi Germany, for example, would have questioned the morality of the Allies razing Germany, even if he knew he may die in the attacks. No truly innocent individual wishes to become a tool of or a shield for his murderous government; he wishes to see his government toppled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, any civilian deaths that occur during actions to fight an aggressor is on the aggressor's hands. That doesn't mean civilians should be targeted when there's no military gain. If a megaton over Tehran saves American lives, so be it. I imagine it'd strike a good blow against the nexus of state-sponsored terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impression I get from Tyco's posts is that he believes that if the military controls the nukes that they will use them indiscriminately. That is just not so. Check the sorts of rules of engagement your government places upon its troops and their leadership. You are building an entire premise based off of a straw-man.

Link to comment
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...