Kim Jong Launches Missiles!

[Lathanar]

Since I provided a link to just such an essay, I can only wonder if you read it with any care. Dr, Ghate shows that “the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.” (emphasis added) If the aggressor nation had not started hostilities, there would be no need for the attacked country to respond. Since modern warfare typically calls for the deployment of weapons of great magnitude, it is often impossible to spare the lives of “innocents.” Further, these casualties may sometimes include citizens of countries that are not engaged in hostilities. For example, a number of Swedes living in Germany were killed by Allied bombs in World War II even though Sweden was a neutral country in that conflict.

I read the essay before you posted it, and as I said, the example he gave with justifying all deaths does not work in this context. I am not talking about people that are part of N Korea. I am not discussing Japanese or Chinese or Russians living in or visiting N Korea, I am discussing Japanese or Chinese or Russians living in their own country. You can not cause damage that can be avoided to surrounding countries and justify it by saying it was N Korea's fault.

Mexico develops nukes and other WMD. They threaten America and Russia. Russia decides to be a bastion of freedom and rationality and nukes Mexico to stop the threat. American south is severely damaged with fallout, cancer and other collatoral damage. We are supposed to suck it up and pat Russia on the back for doing a good job?

Very well, tell us. Just what are our choices? More bribes, er, “humanitarian” aid to the commie cutthroats in Pyongyang? Clinton tried that, and Kim’s nuclear sword has grown longer and sharper.

I know it would be in our best interest to get rid of the N Korean regime, but at the same time I know it would be wrong and just plain stupid to just go in and nuke the crap out of them and say to hell with any surrounding countries that get hurt by it. You have no justifications for killing those people.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Lathanar

[Myron Azov]

I read the essay before you posted it, and as I said, the example he gave with justifying all deaths does not work in this context. I am not talking about people that are part of N Korea. I am not discussing Japanese or Chinese or Russians living in or visiting N Korea, I am discussing Japanese or Chinese or Russians living in their own country. You can not cause damage that can be avoided to surrounding countries and justify it by saying it was N Korea's fault.

Of course it is North Korea’s fault. If the United States strikes N. Korea, it won’t be because we don’t like the color of Kim’s hat. It will be precisely and exclusively because Kim has begun a weapons program that is a threat to the lives of millions of Americans. Yes, it would be most unfortunate if fallout from U.S. bombs reaches parts of Japan or South Korea--but the primary responsibility of the U.S. government is saving U.S. lives, not non-U.S. lives. Just as in the example of the gunman holding a baby and threatening your life, your primary responsibility is to yourself, not the baby.

Mexico develops nukes and other WMD. They threaten America and Russia. Russia decides to be a bastion of freedom and rationality and nukes Mexico to stop the threat. American south is severely damaged with fallout, cancer and other collatoral damage. We are supposed to suck it up and pat Russia on the back for doing a good job?

Not at all; the U.S. should strike Mexico first. Our missiles are closer to the target and our technology is better than the Russians’. If we drag our feet and wait for the Russians to do our fighting for us, we have only our cowardly selves to blame. As for fallout, all wars have costs which must be weighed against benefits. By entering World War II, Great Britain incurred the Nazi bombing of London with a terrible loss of innocent lives. Should Churchill have appeased Hitler in order to spare the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of English children?

By the way, in that regard South Korea, Japan and Taiwan should be far more worried about the effects of North Korean nukes than American nukes. After all, once the Korean commies acquire a sizable stash of warheads and an efficient delivery system, they will be the masters of Northeast Asia, and any nation within the radius of their missiles’ trajectory will be a slave to their beck and call. South Korea will soon be to its fearsome northern neighbor as wretched Poland was to its all-powerful eastern neighbor during the Cold War. So here’s the trade-off: a few days of fallout, some radiation poisoning and increased cancer risk--or generations “living” in a communist satellite. As Ayn Rand would say, you take it from there.

I know it would be in our best interest to get rid of the N Korean regime, but at the same time I know it would be wrong and just plain stupid to just go in and nuke the crap out of them and say to hell with any surrounding countries that get hurt by it. You have no justifications for killing those people.

As I have explained above, the moral responsibility lies entirely with the party who initiates force or the threat thereof.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Myron Azov

[Lathanar]

Of course it is North Korea’s fault. If the United States strikes N. Korea, it won’t be because we don’t like the color of Kim’s hat. It will be precisely and exclusively because Kim has begun a weapons program that is a threat to the lives of millions of Americans. Yes, it would be most unfortunate if fallout from U.S. bombs reaches parts of Japan or South Korea--but the primary responsibility of the U.S. government is saving U.S. lives, not non-U.S. lives. Just as in the example of the gunman holding a baby and threatening your life, your primary responsibility is to yourself, not the baby.

The baby was brought into the situation by the aggressor, that is different then if the baby was in the clear, not involved and such excessive force was used that it caused the baby's death. The context is completely different. This is the same argument as saying if someone attacked me I could kill him and his family. You are not morally right to ignore everyone else's rights as people simply to protect yourself and then blame it on the aggressor. If the aggressor brings others into it, it's his fault. If he doesn't bring them into it, it's wrong for you to bring them into it. If someone in my neighborhood threatens to kill me, I am not within my rights to blow up the apartment building he lives in killing everyone around him to defend myself.

Back into the situation, we blow up N Korea with nukes, piss Russia and China off and they declare war, where does that get us? Where is the long range good we'll get from it besides getting ourselves killed?

[Myron Azov]

The baby was brought into the situation by the aggressor, that is different then if the baby was in the clear, not involved and such excessive force was used that it caused the baby's death. The context is completely different.

But in fact, Aggressor Kim has “brought [the baby] into the situation” by staying in his home country of North Korea and not taking himself and his WMDs to a remote Pacific atoll where the U.S. could easily annihilate him. He has, in effect, brought the “baby,” i.e. neighboring countries, to him.

This is the same argument as saying if someone attacked me I could kill him and his family. You are not morally right to ignore everyone else's rights as people simply to protect yourself and then blame it on the aggressor. If the aggressor brings others into it, it's his fault. If he doesn't bring them into it, it's wrong for you to bring them into it. If someone in my neighborhood threatens to kill me, I am not within my rights to blow up the apartment building he lives in killing everyone around him to defend myself.

Under Objectivist ethics, you are entitled to kill anyone who threatens you while hiding behind a human shield. See http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635 Moreover: it is not the ethical obligation of a potential victim to sacrifice his own life to spare the life of another victim by refusing to retaliate against an aggressor. You are well within your rights to blow up an apartment building if doing so will prevent your death.

Back into the situation, we blow up N Korea with nukes, piss Russia and China off and they declare war, where does that get us? Where is the long range good we'll get from it besides getting ourselves killed?

How does eliminating mortal threats to our existence equate to “getting ourselves killed?” I can only suppose that you regard the defense of the United States as a losing battle, one that must by some weird stroke of destiny had to be won though humiliating concessions to an aggressor.

[Lathanar]

But in fact, Aggressor Kim has “brought [the baby] into the situation” by staying in his home country of North Korea and not taking himself and his WMDs to a remote Pacific atoll where the U.S. could easily annihilate him. He has, in effect, brought the “baby,” i.e. neighboring countries, to him.

Under Objectivist ethics, you are entitled to kill anyone who threatens you while hiding behind a human shield. See http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635 Moreover: it is not the ethical obligation of a potential victim to sacrifice his own life to spare the life of another victim by refusing to retaliate against an aggressor. You are well within your rights to blow up an apartment building if doing so will prevent your death.

First, holding a baby as a human shield, placing captives around military targets, being inside a country being invaded is vastly different then being in the same geographic region as an enemy state. If you can't concede the fact, you are completely evading reality.

Second, NO WHERE in objectivist ethics does it say you'd be within your rights of blowing up a building and killing those inside if you thought it would save your life by killing one person in it. You would only be justified in killing others if you had no other choice, no other options available.

You keep linking these essays your reading, let me quote some of the passages for you.

From your first Innocents in War

If, however, in waging war our government considers the deaths of civilians in terrorist states as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of our own soldiers (or civilians), or as a cost that must be weighed against achieving victory over the enemy, our government thereby violates its most basic function. It becomes not an agent for our self-defense, but theirs.

Morally, the U.S. government must destroy our aggressors by whatever means are necessary and minimize U.S. casualties in the process. To be victorious in war, a free nation has to destroy enough of the aggressor to break his will to continue attacking (and, then, dismantle his war apparatus and, where necessary, replace his government). In modern warfare, this almost always necessitates "collateral damage," i.e., the killing of civilians.

(emphasis mine)

From your last End States That Sponsor Terrorism

These innocents suffer and die because of the action of their own government in sponsoring the initiation of force against America. Their fate, therefore, is their government's moral responsibility. There is no way for our bullets to be aimed only at evil men.

(emphasis mine)

these are well valid reasons why we should not worry about the "innocents" inside the country we are invading. How do you bring that back to mean anyone, anywhere close by? Rand put it best:

Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

We should make ever effort possible to make sure that we retaliate ONLY against those that deserve it when we can.

How does eliminating mortal threats to our existence equate to “getting ourselves killed?” I can only suppose that you regard the defense of the United States as a losing battle, one that must by some weird stroke of destiny had to be won though humiliating concessions to an aggressor.

I consider acts that would lead to a war we could not win to be a "losing battle" and not an act of self defense but rather suicide. It is not the removal of N Korea that I am questioning here, although you seem to think I am. It is the means that you are advocating that I am questioning.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Lathanar

[DarkWaters]

The grotesque concept that one must never wage a war of survival as long as an “innocent” might be harmed is one of the most self-crippling, self-abnegating notions ever devised in our post-Kantian world.

I think Lathanar addressed this fairly well, but since this is a messageboard I want to chime in anyway.

Myron Azov, surely you acknowledge that we should have some consideration for innocents. Suppose that there is an easy way to eradicate a medium-sized terrorist cell at the expense of one innocent life? Now suppose we must sacrifice ten lives? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? At some point, we must recognize that we are sacrificing a large number of innocent individuals for a small security benefit of our own. As the number of innocents harmed increases, we approach sacrificing others for ourself if we have not already crossed that line. John Galt's speech specifically mentions not to sacrifice others for oneself.

Secondly, we must also recognize different categories of "innocents" who could potentially be afflicted in the event of a strategic arms nuclear assault on North Korea. There are civilians directly being held hostage in prisons in North Korea, there are residents of North Korea who do not (intellectually, not openly) disapprove of Kim Jong Il and there innocents living in close countries such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Sacrificing the first kind might unfortunately be inevitable but we must recognize how Kim Jong Il is knowingly putting these individuals are risk. The second kind are not quite so innocent since they indirectly support the regime through inaction. I find it most alarming to carelessly accept a large amount of casualties of the third as inevitable or a worthy price to immediately remove Kim Jong Il from power.

[DarkWaters]

Since I provided a link to just such an essay, I can only wonder if you read it with any care. Dr, Ghate shows that “the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.” (emphasis added) If the aggressor nation had not started hostilities, there would be no need for the attacked country to respond. [ /quote ]

This of course, does not give the defender a blank check to go on a rampage and annihilate scores of neighboring nations for unjust reasons. This includes carelessly using weapons of mass destruction that will almost surely damage multitudes of non-aggressors when other options are still available that can properly ensure one's defense and guarantee less collateral damage.

To build upon my previous point, your example of shooting down the hijacked plane would be morally justified but we would not be morally justified if we subsequently burned all Belgian airports and immolated the occupants to pre-emptively ensure that no Belgian plane would ever be used as a weapon on United States soil again.

[Strangelove]

It is worth considering the possible effectiveness of a limited nuclear attack in the style of Hiroshima, .

[Lathanar]

It is worth considering the possible effectiveness of a limited nuclear attack in the style of Hiroshima, .

If it could be contained and not start a much larger war, sure, go ahead. I'd like to see the CIA sneak a low yield nuke into the N Korea and set it off then generate press that they had an accident trying to make a workable bomb. Oops.

In reality, I'd much rather see us pull our troops out of Iraq, gain assurances from China that they'd stay out of it, and depose Kim with a ground assault. Without backing from larger neighbors, N Korea could never stand up to an invasion. Unite the country and hand the reigns over to S Korea and pull out. No need to nuke anything.

[ex_banana-eater]

For me, debating about how to attack North Korea with some Objectivists would be very unproductive, since the US will never do it. I am disgusted by the current state of world affairs and just want out of it. I feel like I should just focus hard on my career and earning money, donate some of that to ARI, and let ARI do all the worrying and work. How much of this debating is actually getting some cultural change done?

[Strangelove]

For me, debating about how to attack North Korea with some Objectivists would be very unproductive, since the US will never do it.

Well, on the whole, the US is never really in line with the policies of the ARI. I personally just find it enjoyable to discuss current affairs and world events.

How much of this debating is actually getting some cultural change done?

Well message boards can only do so much in any situation, its not as if The Pentagon goes to them for advice or anything. Its still worth discussing in my opinion.

[ex_banana-eater]

Yup. I can see how anyone with an interest in politics or what-have-you would find it valuable to discuss. In my post above, I meant to make it clear that to me, in my context, it isn't productive anymore. I thought my post might be able to help people, because I used to find myself debating this stuff and it was more depressing than valuable. Now I don't watch the news at all and took up new hobbies.

[Toolboxnj]

Problem is that in this thread we have an individual who claims to adhere to Objectivist principles, yet allows for the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians of allied states. It's individuals like this that misinterpret the philosophy and give it a bad name.

[Myron Azov]

First, holding a baby as a human shield, placing captives around military targets, being inside a country being invaded is vastly different then being in the same geographic region as an enemy state.

Of course they’re different. In the first instance, proper self-defense would entail instantaneous death for the human shields. In the second case, proper self-defense would entail only a bit of fallout which can be avoided by staying indoors, duct taping plastic sheets over the windows, and stocking up on bottled water and iodine pills. The Israelis have been distributing these pills for years. Japan and S. Korea should do the same. After the war's over, we'll make the North Korean government pick up the bill for it.

If you can't concede the fact, you are completely evading reality.

No, you are evading reality by the ostrich-head-in-the-sand refusal to confront the genuine threat posed by Korean commies with their nukes and ICBMs.

Second, NO WHERE in objectivist ethics does it say you'd be within your rights of blowing up a building and killing those inside if you thought it would save your life by killing one person in it. You would only be justified in killing others if you had no other choice, no other options available.

Perhaps you mean “Objectivist ethics”? We should never bomb Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad or even a single apartment building as long as we have other choices. When other options do not exist, we should not hesitate to knock the holy crud out of them. As we did in World War II, and as the Philadelphia police did in 1985 when they bombed the headquarters of a violent black radical organization. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/sp...es/11590721.htm

these are well valid reasons why we should not worry about the "innocents" inside the country we are invading. How do you bring that back to mean anyone, anywhere close by? Rand put it best:

That is from an essay, “What Is Capitalism?” written in the 1960s. In 1972 Rand clarified her position. In response to a question about the inadvertent killing of Russian citizens opposed to the Soviet regime in a potential war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., Ayn Rand said, “When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5138 Similarly, I say, when someone comes at you with a missile, you will answer him with force, never mind who is standing within range of the fallout.

We should make ever effort possible to make sure that we retaliate ONLY against those that deserve it when we can.

I agree. That’s why I applaud the U.S. for making sure that the number of people in Japan who did not deserve to be consumed in the atomic blasts there was kept to a bare minimum. I’m certain we’ll exercise the same caution when we launch our birds towards North Korea.

I consider acts that would lead to a war we could not win to be a "losing battle" and not an act of self defense but rather suicide. It is not the removal of N Korea that I am questioning here, although you seem to think I am. It is the means that you are advocating that I am questioning.

Of course, we’ll win it. We’ll just keep bombing the commie creeps till they cry “uncle” or cease to exist. It’ll take a couple of weeks at most. Suicide? No way. Suicide would be waiting until Kim and his buds get several hundred nukes and a quiver full of accurate, long-range ICBMs. That would be suicide. As for my means, retaliatory force is always justified.

[Myron Azov]

I think Lathanar addressed this fairly well, but since this is a messageboard I want to chime in anyway.

Myron Azov, surely you acknowledge that we should have some consideration for innocents. Suppose that there is an easy way to eradicate a medium-sized terrorist cell at the expense of one innocent life? Now suppose we must sacrifice ten lives? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? At some point, we must recognize that we are sacrificing a large number of innocent individuals for a small security benefit of our own. As the number of innocents harmed increases, we approach sacrificing others for ourself if we have not already crossed that line. John Galt's speech specifically mentions not to sacrifice others for oneself.

I am quite satisfied that the number of innocents who would suffer from our morally justified pre-emptive attack on Communist Korea is minuscule in comparison to the potential harm that would be done to them and us should the commies acquire the power to drop nukes on any city in their hemisphere and ours.

Secondly, we must also recognize different categories of "innocents" who could potentially be afflicted in the event of a strategic arms nuclear assault on North Korea. There are civilians directly being held hostage in prisons in North Korea, there are residents of North Korea who do not (intellectually, not openly) disapprove of Kim Jong Il and there innocents living in close countries such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Sacrificing the first kind might unfortunately be inevitable but we must recognize how Kim Jong Il is knowingly putting these individuals are risk. The second kind are not quite so innocent since they indirectly support the regime through inaction. I find it most alarming to carelessly accept a large amount of casualties of the third as inevitable or a worthy price to immediately remove Kim Jong Il from power.

In World War II we bombarded French towns that contained both French citizens and German soldiers. It is unfortunate that some Frenchies got greased, but there was no way to spare them and still crush the Nazi rats. I agree with Ayn Rand, “Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5138

This of course, does not give the defender a blank check to go on a rampage and annihilate scores of neighboring nations for unjust reasons. This includes carelessly using weapons of mass destruction that will almost surely damage multitudes of non-aggressors when other options are still available that can properly ensure one's defense and guarantee less collateral damage.

I haven’t the slightest doubt that our cause is just and our aim careful. As one fervently devoted to eliminating waste in government, I would oppose using a single nuclear bomb more than is necessary to destroy the communist regime in Pyongyang.

To build upon my previous point, your example of shooting down the hijacked plane would be morally justified but we would not be morally justified if we subsequently burned all Belgian airports and immolated the occupants to pre-emptively ensure that no Belgian plane would ever be used as a weapon on United States soil again.

That is an excellent point. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to go on record as opposing the destruction of any airports in S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Myron Azov

[Myron Azov]

Problem is that in this thread we have an individual who claims to adhere to Objectivist principles, yet allows for the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians of allied states. It's individuals like this that misinterpret the philosophy and give it a bad name.

Where in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand is the right of self-defense limited by the possibility of unavoidable harm to civilians in allied states? Consider this: the President of the United States is empowered by law to order the shooting down of a commercial aircraft that has been hijacked and poses an imminent danger to Americans in their homes and offices. Are you in accord with the exercise of this option? What if the airliner is from an allied nation such as Belgium and is full of citizens of that nation? Would you favor shooting it down in that case?

If the answer is “yes,” then you have in effect endorsed, in a certain circumstance, the “killing of innocent civilians of allied states.” If the answer is “no,” then you are not in agreement with Ayn Rand’s statement that “Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5138

Note that the above statement is not qualified by any clause mentioning “innocent civilians of allied states.”

[Lathanar]

Of course they’re different. In the first instance, proper self-defense would entail instantaneous death for the human shields. In the second case, proper self-defense would entail only a bit of fallout which can be avoided by staying indoors, duct taping plastic sheets over the windows, and stocking up on bottled water and iodine pills. The Israelis have been distributing these pills for years. Japan and S. Korea should do the same. After the war's over, we'll make the North Korean government pick up the bill for it.

So now your qualifying the defense with the term proper? What is proper now? What are the boundaries that you can go beyond for it to not be proper anymore? How much damage is too much? Turning the entire country into balsite glass as you've said we should do is within the bounds of proper? Or would just dropping one bomb on the capital be enough? Or would a ground invasion to remove the military be enough?

No, you are evading reality by the ostrich-head-in-the-sand refusal to confront the genuine threat posed by Korean commies with their nukes and ICBMs.

What nukes and what ICBMs? Do we have any real proof they have nukes other than they say they do? They've proven their missile system is something to be desired and has no capability of reaching the US.

Perhaps you mean “Objectivist ethics”? We should never bomb Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad or even a single apartment building as long as we have other choices. When other options do not exist, we should not hesitate to knock the holy crud out of them. As we did in World War II, and as the Philadelphia police did in 1985 when they bombed the headquarters of a violent black radical organization. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/sp...es/11590721.htm

That bombing was a huge black eye on Philly, and in no way was the way the police handled the situation justified. There were many other options available. If we allowed for acts such as this from our government, next they will simply bomb a bank if it's being held up.

That is from an essay, “What Is Capitalism?” written in the 1960s. In 1972 Rand clarified her position. In response to a question about the inadvertent killing of Russian citizens opposed to the Soviet regime in a potential war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., Ayn Rand said, “When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5138 Similarly, I say, when someone comes at you with a missile, you will answer him with force, never mind who is standing within range of the fallout.

Once again she confines that answer to the context of people inside Russia in a war with Russia. Piekoff keeps Rand's wording from her proper government essay in the OPAR, he did not open it up to indiscriminate killing of anyone, nor did Rand. He confined the use of retaliatory force ONLY to a government and only then because they have objective rules for using that force, not indiscriminate use. A favorite example of placing the blame for killing of innocents is the man with a gun to your head saying kill that person over there. You could kill that person, and ethically blame it on the man with the gun, but you could not then go and kill the 50 people standing in the area and blame it on the man with the gun.

I agree. That’s why I applaud the U.S. for making sure that the number of people in Japan who did not deserve to be consumed in the atomic blasts there was kept to a bare minimum. I’m certain we’ll exercise the same caution when we launch our birds towards North Korea.

But if we have a right to kill them indiscriminately why should we care if we warn them or not? What use is caution?

Of course, we’ll win it. We’ll just keep bombing the commie creeps till they cry “uncle” or cease to exist. It’ll take a couple of weeks at most. Suicide? No way. Suicide would be waiting until Kim and his buds get several hundred nukes and a quiver full of accurate, long-range ICBMs. That would be suicide. As for my means, retaliatory force is always justified.

Yes, I see. We'll just nuke Russia and China and in a few weeks it will all be over. No chance that anything will happen to the US. Killing over half the human population to subdue Kim will be well justified.

[Myron Azov]

So now your qualifying the defense with the term proper? What is proper now? What are the boundaries that you can go beyond for it to not be proper anymore? How much damage is too much? Turning the entire country into balsite glass as you've said we should do is within the bounds of proper? Or would just dropping one bomb on the capital be enough? Or would a ground invasion to remove the military be enough?

Proper self-defense is having a handgun in your home locked and loaded. Improper self-defense is forgetting where you put the dang gun. “Too much damage” is like piling on in football. Once a building is destroyed, you can’t really destroy it again. I never said that all of North Korea should be turned into glass, just those areas above the cozy little bunkers where the korcoms are hiding. Bombing one building ain’t enough. The reason why we lost in ‘Nam is that we were too stingy with our ordnance. We should have hammered Hanoi, broken the dikes, and starved the whole region. If we’d used nukes as Barry AuH20 suggested, Charlie would have surrendered the next day.

What nukes and what ICBMs? Do we have any real proof they have nukes other than they say they do?

If you’re the teller of a bank and a man comes to your window to demand cash, would you first make him prove that the gun was loaded? Would you ask him to fire a round into the ceiling to demonstrate that the gun works?

They've proven their missile system is something to be desired and has no capability of reaching the US.

So should we wait until they can drop a payload into San Francisco Bay before taking any action?

That bombing was a huge black eye on Philly, and in no way was the way the police handled the situation justified. There were many other options available. If we allowed for acts such as this from our government, next they will simply bomb a bank if it's being held up.

It was a heroic action with just the right touch of shock and awe. You may have noticed the conspicuous absence of violent radical black groups in the years since.

Once again she confines that answer to the context of people inside Russia in a war with Russia. Piekoff keeps Rand's wording from her proper government essay in the OPAR, he did not open it up to indiscriminate killing of anyone, nor did Rand. He confined the use of retaliatory force ONLY to a government and only then because they have objective rules for using that force, not indiscriminate use

In the Ford Hall Q & A, Ayn Rand was asked a question about Soviet Russia, but her answer contained a general principle about aggression and the moral response to it. She said, “When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.”

She did not say, “When you are living in the Soviet Union and someone comes at you with a gun . . .”

It would be absurd to infer that the word “you” in her response applies exclusively to Soviet citizens.

A favorite example of placing the blame for killing of innocents is the man with a gun to your head saying kill that person over there. You could kill that person, and ethically blame it on the man with the gun, but you could not then go and kill the 50 people standing in the area and blame it on the man with the gun.

Agreed. So what we do is first kill the man with the gun to our head (Kim Jong Il).

But if we have a right to kill them indiscriminately why should we care if we warn them or not? What use is caution?

A matter of politeness. It’s like putting up a sign in a convenience store to let pacemaker patients know that microwave ovens are operating on the premises. That way you get fewer corpses on the floor, and it’s generally better for business.

Yes, I see. We'll just nuke Russia and China and in a few weeks it will all be over. No chance that anything will happen to the US. Killing over half the human population to subdue Kim will be well justified.

You haven’t offered any reason for us to suppose the Chicoms and the Russians are going to stick their necks out for Kim and his basketcase country.

[Strangelove]

You haven’t offered any reason for us to suppose the Chicoms and the Russians are going to stick their necks out for Kim and his basketcase country.

Not for North Korea. The fact that America would have displayed its willigness to use nuclear weapons enmass to ensure total and complete vicotory, would mean that the leadership in Moscow and Beijing will realize that the US has had a fundemental policy change. They would reach the conlclusion that since they know that they are not on the US's list of allies, they their very survival is threatened. And so will feel that they have no choice but to stop Washington with maximum force before more harm is done to them.

The day we get an operational anti-ballistic shield is a day I look forward to.

Secondly, the first obligation of a U.S. government is to defend U.S. citizens--not South Koreans, not Taiwanese, not the unfortunate "innocents" who might be caught in a crossfire. The grotesque concept that one must never wage a war of survival as long as an “innocent” might be harmed is one of the most self-crippling, self-abnegating notions ever devised in our post-Kantian world.

While thinking about this issue today, I came the conclusion that its ridiculous to write off Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan the way that you do. I am enriched by those countries in so many ways, economically, socially, personally. I would argue that almost every American is as well. It is desierable to maintain them. The US economy would be unecessarily harmed by their loss, and Americans would be wrongfully deprived. This is not the same as a museum in Baghdad with cultural artifacts which unfortuantely may have to fall victim to our artillery, that is unavoidable. I know that we can avoid having to subject Japan and South Korea to unecessary fallout, and unecessary nuclear weapons from the DPRK.

The day that those nations also get an anti-ballistic missile shield will also be a very good day, the sooner the better.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Strangelove

[Lathanar]

Proper self-defense is having a handgun in your home locked and loaded. Improper self-defense is forgetting where you put the dang gun. “Too much damage” is like piling on in football. Once a building is destroyed, you can’t really destroy it again. I never said that all of North Korea should be turned into glass, just those areas above the cozy little bunkers where the korcoms are hiding. Bombing one building ain’t enough. The reason why we lost in ‘Nam is that we were too stingy with our ordnance. We should have hammered Hanoi, broken the dikes, and starved the whole region. If we’d used nukes as Barry AuH20 suggested, Charlie would have surrendered the next day.

The problems with Vietnam and Korea where far and beyond just the amount of ordinance we used, I'm not even going to go into those issues right now. The point of discussion is not about how much ordinance is used, but the excessive and indiscriminate use of ordinance without any regard to who it damages. If we are to totally wipe out North Korea and make sure it can never threaten us, what stops us from just bombing the whole country? You say we'd be in our moral rights to do it, what would make us not?

If you’re the teller of a bank and a man comes to your window to demand cash, would you first make him prove that the gun was loaded? Would you ask him to fire a round into the ceiling to demonstrate that the gun works?

There is a difference between a man brandishing a gun in front of you and saying that he had a gun on him. In N Korea's case, all available evidence that I can find released to the public says they are several years off from being able to do anything of the sort to be a direct threat to us, far from some immediate threat that demands immediate annhilation. We have time to prepare a proper attack plan, not resort to whatever means we can.

So should we wait until they can drop a payload into San Francisco Bay before taking any action?

Before we resort to nuking the country, yes. I'd rather have us try the other options available to us. It is a pre-emptive strike, not an act in self defense.

It was a heroic action with just the right touch of shock and awe. You may have noticed the conspicuous absence of violent radical black groups in the years since.

It was far from heroic, there was no heroism involved. What was noticed was a definite fear and distrust of the police force in Philly. America is not a terror regime.

In the Ford Hall Q & A, Ayn Rand was asked a question about Soviet Russia, but her answer contained a general principle about aggression and the moral response to it. She said, “When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.”

She did not say, “When you are living in the Soviet Union and someone comes at you with a gun . . .”

It would be absurd to infer that the word “you” in her response applies exclusively to Soviet citizens.

She used the analogy in the context of what was being discussed. If she were alive, I'd love to see what her response would be to the question should we bomb all of Europe because Russia is in part of it.

Agreed. So what we do is first kill the man with the gun to our head (Kim Jong Il).

But you said that any deaths incurred are the fault of the aggressor, so why would it be wrong to kill those 50 people? it would be the aggressors fault. What stops you from killing them?

A matter of politeness. It’s like putting up a sign in a convenience store to let pacemaker patients know that microwave ovens are operating on the premises. That way you get fewer corpses on the floor, and it’s generally better for business.

If we're out to kill them, why be polite, what's the point? If their deaths aren't on your hands, who cares?

You haven’t offered any reason for us to suppose the Chicoms and the Russians are going to stick their necks out for Kim and his basketcase country.

The point is not that China would attack us if we attacked N Korea. That is a very real possibility though, since they've done so in the past and can not be overlooked. The point is that China would attack us if we caused severe damage to China and Chinese civilians in China when we attacked N Korea, just as Russia would attack us if we caused harm to their citizens in their country when we attacked. Your solution is to nuke them too. My solution is to attack N Korea in such a way as to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Myron Azov]

Not for North Korea. The fact that America would have displayed its willigness to use nuclear weapons enmass to ensure total and complete vicotory, would mean that the leadership in Moscow and Beijing will realize that the US has had a fundemental policy change. They would reach the conlclusion that since they know that they are not on the US's list of allies, they their very survival is threatened. And so will feel that they have no choice but to stop Washington with maximum force before more harm is done to them.

Nonsense. Both Moscow and Beijing opposed U.S. intervention into Serbia, a close Russian ally, but did nothing to interfere with U.S. and NATO forces there in 1999. Not even after we bombed the Chicom’s embassy and killed three of their citizens! To suppose they'd put their lives and fortunes on the line for a broken-down runt like North Korea is laughable.

The day we get an operational anti-ballistic shield is a day I look forward to.

In the meantime, we have to rely on offensive weaponry.

While thinking about this issue today, I came the conclusion that its ridiculous to write off Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan the way that you do.

Who’s writing them off? I'm proposing that we rescue them by beating up the neighborhood bully.

I am enriched by those countries in so many ways, economically, socially, personally. I would argue that almost every American is as well. It is desierable to maintain them.

All the more reason we should take down the bully and drop-kick his head till he stops moving.

The US economy would be unecessarily harmed by their loss, and Americans would be wrongfully deprived. This is not the same as a museum in Baghdad with cultural artifacts which unfortuantely may have to fall victim to our artillery, that is unavoidable. I know that we can avoid having to subject Japan and South Korea to unecessary fallout, and unecessary nuclear weapons from the DPRK.

What loss are you talking about? If we wait until the Korcoms have a healthy supply of nukes and missiles, Japan and South Korea will be licking their new master's jackboots. Then, my fine Mr. Strangelove, you'll see the real loss when they disappear behind a new Bamboo Curtain.

The day that those nations also get an anti-ballistic missile shield will also be a very good day, the sooner the better.

No doubt. But those nations haven't even appropriated funds for such a shield. In the meantime, Li’l Kim has a weapons acquisition program that puts Nazi Germany’s to shame.

[Myron Azov]

The problems with Vietnam and Korea where far and beyond just the amount of ordinance we used, I'm not even going to go into those issues right now. The point of discussion is not about how much ordinance is used, but the excessive and indiscriminate use of ordinance without any regard to who it damages. If we are to totally wipe out North Korea and make sure it can never threaten us, what stops us from just bombing the whole country? You say we'd be in our moral rights to do it, what would make us not?

Concern for the overburdened U.S. taxpayer. Nukes don’t come cheaply. A nuke saved is a nuke earned. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...323_bomb15.html

There is a difference between a man brandishing a gun in front of you and saying that he had a gun on him.

And the difference between a working warhead and a non-working warhead is no more obvious than the difference between a loaded gun and an unloaded gun. So shouldn’t the teller make the robber demonstrate the gun fires real bullets before handing over the cash?

In N Korea's case, all available evidence that I can find released to the public says they are several years off from being able to do anything of the sort to be a direct threat to us, far from some immediate threat that demands immediate annhilation. We have time to prepare a proper attack plan, not resort to whatever means we can.

Prior to India’s successful detonation of a nuclear device in 1974, the U.S. intelligence community was certain that India was years away from joining the nuclear club. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB187/index.htm

As for “proper” attack plans, the best ones are those that leave the enemy in tiny pieces long before you send in ground forces. The problem with Iraq is that three years ago there was way too little shock and not nearly enough awe.

Before we resort to nuking the country, yes. I'd rather have us try the other options available to us. It is a pre-emptive strike, not an act in self defense.

I keep asking, what other options? “Diplomacy Only Encourages North Korea's Belligerence.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

Pre-emptive strikes against a potential predator are not only legitimate but essential acts of self-defense. http://www.prodos.com/archive049Preemptive...ristStates.html

It was far from heroic, there was no heroism involved. What was noticed was a definite fear and distrust of the police force in Philly. America is not a terror regime.

Any action that destroys an anarchistic organization is heroic. The Objectivist Philadelphians I know cheered at the news that that a vile nest of left-wing vipers had been permanently removed from their midst.

She used the analogy in the context of what was being discussed.

Ayn Rand stated a general principle of self-defense. The onus is on you to show why this principle should be applied only to the defunct Soviet Union and to no other situation.

If she were alive, I'd love to see what her response would be to the question should we bomb all of Europe because Russia is in part of it.

Stawman. No one in this thread has advocated the bombing of non-hostile nations. Furthermore, in her lifetime Ayn Rand 1) enthusiastically supported a strong U.S. defense, including its powerful nuclear arsenal and 2) would have been well aware that nuclear weapons, even our own, produce fallout that might unavoidably rain on non-hostile populations.

But you said that any deaths incurred are the fault of the aggressor, so why would it be wrong to kill those 50 people? it would be the aggressors fault. What stops you from killing them?

1) Frugality. Bullets don’t come cheaply. 2) Waste of time. If the fellow pointing the gun at my head now has a bullet between his peepers, I don’t have to stand around popping off random passersby.

If we're out to kill them, why be polite, what's the point? If their deaths aren't on your hands, who cares?

Live South Koreans buy more U.S. goods than dead ones.

The point is not that China would attack us if we attacked N Korea. That is a very real possibility though, since they've done so in the past and can not be overlooked. The point is that China would attack us if we caused severe damage to China and Chinese civilians in China when we attacked N Korea, just as Russia would attack us if we caused harm to their citizens in their country when we attacked. Your solution is to nuke them too. My solution is to attack N Korea in such a way as to make sure that doesn't happen.

We only have to nuke China if it sticks its nose in. But the Chicoms, knowing that a little fallout will cause far less harm than a torrent of U.S. missiles aimed at Beijing, will wisely stay the heck out.

[Strangelove]

Nonsense. Both Moscow and Beijing opposed U.S. intervention into Serbia, a close Russian ally, but did nothing to interfere with U.S. and NATO forces there in 1999. Not even after we bombed the Chicom’s embassy and killed three of their citizens! To suppose they'd put their lives and fortunes on the line for a broken-down runt like North Korea is laughable.

We didnt use nukes in Serbia, and both powers had no interests in that region. Russia was far to concerned about recovering from their time as Communists to be able to seriously contemplate stopping NATO, and Beijing can have diplomatic protests, but really don't care about that mess in the Balkans enough to go to war over it. For a government that routinely kills its own people for political purposes, a few lost diplomats is hardly a matter of concern for Beijing.

Using nuclear weapons on the Asian mainland however, scares the hell out of Beijing, using them enmass to guarantee that every unit hiding under a hill and mountain is killed, will raise serious concerns in Moscow and Beijing. Do you think that the Chinese people (who these days are more nationalistic and are becoming more fascist then communists) are just going to want their government to sit idle as America rains down hell fire? Do you think that the PLA's generals, who are already itching for a war with America, will be able to tolerate just standing by? Russia would have less incentive then China, but Mr. Putin is no friend of ours and he has a slight stake in this issue. With America showing a new lack of restraint with regards to their nuclear arsenal, Moscow will have a very strong incentive to react and do something about it.

If anything, fighiting any sort of conventional war with North Korea is less likely to get Beijing involved then the pounding the penninsula with weapons. (which is what we would need to do if we want to destroy the army with missiles for reasons about North Korea's defensive strategies which have been brought up already) Beijing would lack the pretext to be able to use nuclear weapons against us, and though I expect that they will try and take North Korean territory as well, which is a problem, they certainly wont extend the war further then necessary on that front. They try and do something about Taiwan, but we have an American fleet there to force them to declare a full war on us, something they do not want to do because they know that will bring a full response.

We have to remove North Korea's existance. This is a given. Its important how we do it.

How long have you been involved in Objectivism? Recent discovery, or for a longer period of time? (I wont hold either against you, just curious)

Edited July 7, 2006 by Strangelove

[Lathanar]

Concern for the overburdened U.S. taxpayer. Nukes don’t come cheaply. A nuke saved is a nuke earned.

1) Frugality. Bullets don’t come cheaply. 2) Waste of time. If the fellow pointing the gun at my head now has a bullet between his peepers, I don’t have to stand around popping off random passersby.

Live South Koreans buy more U.S. goods than dead ones.

So in your view of ethics, when defending yourself, keeping the costs down, and make sure we still have some people alive to trade with are what determines where the extent of collatoral damage rather than human life?

And the difference between a working warhead and a non-working warhead is no more obvious than the difference between a loaded gun and an unloaded gun. So shouldn’t the teller make the robber demonstrate the gun fires real bullets before handing over the cash?

What non working warhead?

Prior to India’s successful detonation of a nuclear device in 1974, the U.S. intelligence community was certain that India was years away from joining the nuclear club.

So we no longer go off of what we can objectively determine, we only go off what we feel. I feel N Korea has nukes and is going to shoot them at us, lets nuke them all. We couldn't figure out that India was close, so we obviously can't figure out N Korea is close, so lets kill them because they might be.

As for “proper” attack plans, the best ones are those that leave the enemy in tiny pieces long before you send in ground forces. The problem with Iraq is that three years ago there was way too little shock and not nearly enough awe.

Fine, bomb them a bunch first. There's ways of doing it without nukes and without pissing off neighboring states or killing their population.

I keep asking, what other options?

I gave one.

Pre-emptive strikes against a potential predator are not only legitimate but essential acts of self-defense.

No they aren't. Potential does not make it so.

Any action that destroys an anarchistic organization is heroic. The Objectivist Philadelphians I know cheered at the news that that a vile nest of left-wing vipers had been permanently removed from their midst.

The ends never justifies the means

Ayn Rand stated a general principle of self-defense. The onus is on you to show why this principle should be applied only to the defunct Soviet Union and to no other situation.

Every instance you've put links to (btw, knock that off, I don't have time to go through all that stuff trying to figure out how it supports what your saying. Make your points.) use that justification in the context of people within the confines of the enemy state. None of them are using it to justify indiscriminate killing.

Stawman. No one in this thread has advocated the bombing of non-hostile nations.

You have advocated that we can bomb non-hostile nations. You have said it does not matter what we do to the surrounding nations, it would be N Koreas fault. We could bomb S Korea, Japan, China, it does not matter if we thought it was in defense of a N Korea threat. We are justified in killing anyone we want to if we feel threatened.

We only have to nuke China if it sticks its nose in. But the Chicoms, knowing that a little fallout will cause far less harm than a torrent of U.S. missiles aimed at Beijing, will wisely stay the heck out.

Um, yeah, that is not how the real world works.

[Strangelove]

They try and do something about Taiwan, but we have an American fleet there to force them to declare a full war on us, something they do not want to do because they know that will bring a full response.

To clarify, we currently have written legislation where we promise Taiwan's survival so Beijing does not provoke us there (unless they feel somehow that we would not uphold that commitement) changing our nuclear posture to an offensive, rather then currently a defensive one, would signal to the world that our intent to use nuclear weapons to remove enemies is now policy, which will provide greater incentive for the Chinese to hit the US before they themselves get hit.

Edited July 8, 2006 by Strangelove