Israel's Disproportionate use of Force

[LaszloWalrus]

We were the bad guys in that war? The Vietcong was a Communist and Soviet-backed organization that murdered huge numbers of peasants and created mass starvation. The US should never have been involved in the war because it was stupidly self-sacrificial and our troops were not allowed to win, only to "contain" the Communists. Still, the US was good, the Vietcong were bad.

It is fine for Israel to kill women and children in Lebanon if that is the most effective way to accomplish their military aims. No semi-free country has to surrender its right to self-defense to spare the lives of those in a slave state. Lebanon does not have the right to kill Israelis because they are the unfree nation and the agressor.

Onkar Ghate has a good article on this:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2547

[Myron Azov]

The Vietcong never attacked us until we attacked them. So there was really nothing wrong about their attacking us. We were the bad guys in that war. So my question stands--were they to have targeted American women and children, would that have been a moral wrong?

The attempt--successful, it turns out--to impose a communist dictatorship on the people of Vietnam is the most hideous form of aggressive force. The effort by the United States to prevent Vietnam from falling into the hands of these murderous reds is a sterling example of defensive force. And, yes, as if it needed to be said, just as it was evil for commie monsters to target Vietnamese civilians, it would be just as evil to target American women and children.

I'm not decided one way or the other. Should we attack manufacturing, industrial, and commercial targets in a war? Would not civilians be just such targets, as they contribute to the enemy war machine? Maybe it is okay, as a tactical measure, to target civilians. I don't know.

I do know. The answer is Yes!

Edited July 18, 2006 by Myron Azov

[blackdiamond]

Should the United States and Britain have made certain that every person in Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo and Hiroshima was evacuated before dropping bombs on those cities?

and where do you believe i suggested anything like this?

i will repeat what i said (with emphasis repeated) and see if it sounds like the strawman you are attacking:

blackdiamond:I agree that you should *not* MAKE EVERY EFFORT to try to save these (at cost to you), but to move from that to MAKING EVERY EFFORT to kill anyone and everyone is quite a big step - in the wrong direction, i think.

So, your question above would suggest that i would have wanted the USA to MAKE EVERY EFFORT to try to save the innocent, even at the cost of their own lives, which is a clear misrepresentation of my position. It is this position you attacked in your response to me. Since it is *not* my position, you have not responded to my objections, but to something you created (i.e, a strawman argument).

It is evil to MAKE EVERY EFFORT to kill someone who is not a threat to you. It is not evil to kill him (unavoidably) in your attempt to kill or destroy someone who is a threat to you.

Or let me put it this way:

When you are in war with an enemy, you CAN (rightfully) kill innocent people. This does not mean you (necessarily) SHOULD. The latter is what you are suggesting from your statement of "making every effort" to do so, and you are clearly wrong.

[Myron Azov]

When you are in war with an enemy, you CAN (rightfully) kill innocent people. This does not mean you (necessarily) SHOULD. The latter is what you are suggesting from your statement of "making every effort" to do so, and you are clearly wrong.

When our nation's security is threatened, we should make every effort possible to vanquish the enemy quickly while minimizing the loss of American lives. When the enemy is a nation whose citizens contribute to its economic vitality, then it is entirely ethical to deprive the enemy of its means to make war by destroying its productive capability, including its workforce. This is how we won the last world war. And this is the only way we can win the War on Terror.

As Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, has written, victory over the terrorists requires “devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4581

To repeat: inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations.

[Ifat Glassman]

First some update about the situation in Lebanon: the IDF has entered south Lebanon in several locations, with the intention of destroying Hesbollah's posts across the border. The problem is that apparently the enemy has anticipated it, and planted powerful explosives in the ground in those areas.

After 8 days of massive attack on Hesbollah's posts and resources, they are still able to launch close to a hunded missiles each day.

Up until now about 800 missiles were launched at Israel, and about 15 Israeli civilians killed (not sure about the exact number at this time).

I heard a wise Saudi reporter saying that this is all Iran's planning, and just a part of it's plan to conquer other Arab territories. I was wondering if anyone can give any evidence to support this?

As for the Lebanese: A lot of them just want to have a peacefull life, and have nothing against Israel. The resistance force against Israel that is acting from Lebanon is the result of Lebanon opening it's gates to Palestinian refugees. This later escalated the conflict in Lebanon between groups of different religions and goals, and even cause a civil war, which greately weakened Lebanon into the state that it's army was very weak, it's government had no power, and Hesbollah were able to occupy the South.

The Majority of the Lebanonnians are peaceful people, who are not an enemy of Israel. The whole world recognises this distinction between the government of Lebanon (the part of it that does not support Hesbollah)and Hesbollah, and trusts them, (had they had the military ability to control the south), to hold it's army against Hesbollah in that area.

The Lebanese have value to Israel as a possible partner for comerse, and certainly we have no intention or profit from killing Lebanese, which obviously don't like Hesbollah on their territory just as we dont (well maybe slightly less...)

While it is true that the culture that the Lebanese develope there and the welath they produce enable the existance of Hesbollah in that area, it is Syria and Iran who are the main supporters of Hesbollah, who supply the weapons and the methods of destruction. The wealth of the Lebanese by itself would not be enough to support all the abilities of destruction the Hesbollah hold today.

Killing Lebanese indiscriminantly would not only be useless, it would also be unjustified, which is the first thing that we have to consider, and not the second.

[blackdiamond]

When our nation's security is threatened, we should make every effort possible to vanquish the enemy quickly while minimizing the loss of American lives. When the enemy is a nation whose citizens contribute to its economic vitality, then it is entirely ethical to deprive the enemy of its means to make war by destroying its productive capability, including its workforce. This is how we won the last world war. And this is the only way we can win the War on Terror.

No, this is not how you won the last world war; that's a highly revisionist account. You broke their will to continue fighting, "you" did not target or destroy their "productive ability" by "destroying their work force".

I must grant you one thing: you are very creative.

And one more thing: did you actually read the whole of Dr. Brook's article that you keep citing in every submission you make (to me)?

[KendallJ]

No, this is not how you won the last world war; that's a highly revisionist account. You broke their will to continue fighting, "you" did not target or destroy their "productive ability" by "destroying their work force".

I beg to differ. How does one "break the will to continue fighting", and not do everything else listed? To claim we broke their will without in fact deliberately targeting their industry and their civilian populations is acting the revisionist. In fact, Japanese industry was targeted, and its civilian cities were firebombed. That's fact. (By the way, you substituted "by" for "including" in the original quote, which changes the meaning)

And one more thing: did you actually read the whole of Dr. Brook's article that you keep citing in every submission you make (to me)?

You were asking because.... what? I read the whole thing and Myron summarizes it pretty well.

[Myron Azov]

No, this is not how you won the last world war; that's a highly revisionist account. You broke their will to continue fighting, "you" did not target or destroy their "productive ability" by "destroying their work force".

It is not revisionist at all for it is consistent with what Allied leaders and commanders said at the time of the war:

The master theorist and practitioner of civilian bombing was Sir Arthur T. Harris, marshall of the RAF and commander of the British bomber command from 1942 until the end of the war.

One of the rationales Harris used was that, since precision bombing was not perfected, "to destroy something you have to destroy everything." The aiming points were "usually right in the center of the town." And Harris proudly declared at one point during the war, "I kill thousands of people every night."

A staff report in 1942 stated that it was necessary to destroy 42 German cities with populations exceeding 100,000; that one ton of bombs was needed to kill 800 people; and that 75,000 tons of explosives would be dropped per month for a six-month period. And in a later report in 1942, it was said that the goal would be to cause 900,000 civilian deaths and 1 million to be seriously wounded, while 25 million would be left homeless. Besides Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria were targeted for civilian casualties in the war, but it was German cities that bore the brunt throughout the war in Europe.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM

I must grant you one thing: you are very creative.

Just accurate.

And one more thing: did you actually read the whole of Dr. Brook's article that you keep citing in every submission you make (to me)?

Yes. Have you?

[blackdiamond]

It is not revisionist at all for it is consistent with what Allied leaders and commanders said at the time of the war:

Okay, it's good you have quoted something from a commander in that war (for now, i will take your word that this is an accurate representation of the general attitude/goals of the Allied forces). Let's analyse what he said:

1. Can you tell me why he says "since precision bombing was not perfected, ..." if it was actually his goal to just do indiscriminate mass bombing in the first place (as you are suggesting)? Would you disagree with me that the reason he had to take this route was simply because he had no way of achieving "precision"? (This would be different from deliberately "making every effort" to just destroy everyone because "they are part of the productive workforce" that supports the enemy government.)

2. Since you say the commander's goals were consistent with your account, can you show me from what you quoted where he says the reason he was bombing civilians was either {a} because none of them are innocent; or {b} to destroy their ability to produce? (Even if you believe you do have a point, this does not mean you have shown it by the article you have used as your evidence; it has absolutely nothing to do with the charge you are responding to.)

[KendallJ]

2. Since you say the commander's goals were consistent with your account, can you show me from what you quoted where he says the reason he was bombing civilians was either {a} because none of them are innocent; or {b} to destroy their ability to produce? (Even if you believe you do have a point, this does not mean you have shown it by the article you have used as your evidence; it has absolutely nothing to do with the charge you are responding to.)

Myron, don't answer that. Diamond, are you asking Myron to prove that the commanding generals were Objectivists? Their intent matters not. The fact is, that civilian targets were bombed, and that was the cause of the "will breaking" of the Japanese people. The cause and effect is in reality, and that has EVERYTHING to do with Myron's charge. If you want to show that the intent of the generals was not that, then you first need to show that had they been able to follow their real intent, the war would have been won anyway. In fact, we have evidence ongoing of how the use of "proportionate force" does NOT solve the problem.

[Capitalism Forever]

The question of proportion is best summarized by Ann Coulter in her column of yesterday:

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

[Marc K.]

If you're going to make such arguments, you should focus on reality. When did the Vietcong drop bombs on us?

I’m trying to understand the point of your post.

Are you just questioning the accuracy of his claim or do you disagree with the argument Myron Azov is making in favor of total war?

Marc

[aleph_0]

We were the bad guys in that war? The Vietcong was a Communist and Soviet-backed organization that murdered huge numbers of peasants and created mass starvation. The US should never have been involved in the war because it was stupidly self-sacrificial and our troops were not allowed to win, only to "contain" the Communists. Still, the US was good, the Vietcong were bad.

That they were the bad guys doesn't make us the good guys. We were just as aggressive as the Vietcong.

The attempt--successful, it turns out--to impose a communist dictatorship on the people of Vietnam is the most hideous form of aggressive force. The effort by the United States to prevent Vietnam from falling into the hands of these murderous reds is a sterling example of defensive force. And, yes, as if it needed to be said, just as it was evil for commie monsters to target Vietnamese civilians, it would be just as evil to target American women and children.

How was it defensive? When were we first attacked by the Vietcong? When did they declare war on us and when did the officials threaten to harm one hair on one American on American soil?

And here we have a contradiction, if you are saying that it would be evil to target American women and children because they are women and children. If that is wrong, it is just as wrong for any other organization to target women and children.

I do know. The answer is Yes!

Then do tell why that is the answer. I'm not nearly convinced, your bravado not withstanding.

[hunterrose]

When our nation's security is threatened... when the enemy is a nation whose citizens contribute to its economic vitality, then it is entirely ethical to deprive the enemy of its means to make war by destroying ... its workforce.

Is there ever an enemy whose citizens don't contribute to its economic vitality?

Does this mean that it was entirely ethical for foreign nations to destroy American civilians on those occasions when America unethically threatened some other nation's security?

Diamond, are you asking Myron to prove that the commanding generals were Objectivists? Their intent matters not.

I believe blackdiamond's point was that bombing civilians when there is no other winning alternative is not a validation of Myron's idea that one can morally attack any threatening enemy's civilian population despite technology that allows the breaking of wills and destruction of warring capacity without turning civilians into radioactive ooze.

The fact is, that civilian targets were bombed, and that was the cause of the "will breaking" of the Japanese people.

Breaking an enemy's will to fight is not the same as breaking an enemy's reason to fight. Breaking a will to fight is never an true end to hostilities.

And, yes, as if it needed to be said, just as it was evil for commie monsters to target Vietnamese civilians, it would be just as evil to target American women and children.

The disturbing thing there is that you imply that it doesn't need to be said that capitalist heroes targeting Vietnamese civilians wouldn't necessarily be evil...

[blackdiamond]

Myron, don't answer that. Diamond, are you asking Myron to prove that the commanding generals were Objectivists? Their intent matters not. The fact is, that civilian targets were bombed, and that was the cause of the "will breaking" of the Japanese people. The cause and effect is in reality, and that has EVERYTHING to do with Myron's charge. If you want to show that the intent of the generals was not that, then you first need to show that had they been able to follow their real intent, the war would have been won anyway. In fact, we have evidence ongoing of how the use of "proportionate force" does NOT solve the problem.

The reason i did not respond to you in the first place, Kendall, is that i could tell you have not followed the debate between me and Myron. Your last post has just confirmed this. The only reason i will comment on it now is because other people who could join the debate at this point might also start getting the impression that i am advocating "proportionate" force, or that i am against Israel's use of "disproportionate" force. I am not. I already went through this effort of showing Myron that this is a strawman, and i believe he understands that since he hasn't been going back to the task of singing to the choir in his recent posts, unlike you, Kendall.

Let's see if this confuses you:

1. I support everything Israel is doing in Lebanon (and Palestine), including the actions that have resulted in civilian deaths!

2. I support what America did to Japan in the second world war.

3. I think America / Israel should bomb Syria and Iran (and if necessary, even North Korea).

So, what's my problem then? You tell me. First understand the debate; then join in.

Can i also ask, by the way, why you believe you can order other debaters not to answer some questions asked by other debaters?

Myron, don't answer that.

[Myron Azov]

That they were the bad guys doesn't make us the good guys. We were just as aggressive as the Vietcong.

False. Whether or not intervention in Vietnam was in its national interest, the United States was attempting to prevent all of Southeast Asia from falling into the hands of totalitarian butchers. That effort was as legitimately defensive as killing the Japanese who were trying to do the same thing in World War II. If in the course of performing their duty, U.S. forces unavoidably killed a few innocents, that is unfortunate but no cause for shame. Remember, we are discussing modern war, not cricket.

How was it defensive? When were we first attacked by the Vietcong? When did they declare war on us and when did the officials threaten to harm one hair on one American on American soil?

Early in the 20th century commie strategists Lenin and Trotsky made it clear that their goal was an international communist revolution. http://www.swp.ie/resources/Who%20was%20Leon%20Trotsky.htm If one does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a “people’s republic” and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few, perhaps freedom is not very high on his agenda

And here we have a contradiction, if you are saying that it would be evil to target American women and children because they are women and children. If that is wrong, it is just as wrong for any other organization to target women and children.

For the record, I am categorically opposed to killing American women and children. Such killing would constitute the initiation of force and must be punished immediately and severely. On the other hand, if an terrorist state (e.g. Iran or North Korea) announces its intentions to spread its evil beyond its borders and acquires the means (WMDs) to do so, then the leaders of this country have not only the right but the moral obligation to smash those threats and do so in a way that assures total and long-term victory. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, modern warfare is waged successfully by wreaking overwhelming destruction on the enemy, including what Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, calls “complicit civilian populations.” That is exactly how we triumphed over the Germans and the Japanese--by turning their cities into towers of flame:

After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. . . The aftermath of the incendiary bombings le[d] to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devast[at]ing single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II

I can only hope our current leaders will have the same appetite for killing Iranians and North Koreans.

[Lathanar]

Does this mean that it was entirely ethical for foreign nations to destroy American civilians on those occasions when America unethically threatened some other nation's security?

One of my problem with Myron's logic he's been posting in this and other threads is that the rest of the world should be attacking us. We are the biggest gun, we are the biggest economic force, we use our political muscle to enforce our ideology on the rest of the world, we are the biggest threat to ever other nation. A pre-emptive strike against America only makes sense for the rest of the world. It leads then that the rest of the world is our biggest threat, so we should just bomb Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and probably even Australia and just get it over with. No more threats.

[Lathanar]

False. Whether or not intervention in Vietnam was in its national interest, the United States was attempting to prevent all of Southeast Asia from falling into the hands of totalitarian butchers. That effort was as legitimately defensive as killing the Japanese who were trying to do the same thing in World War II. If in the course of performing their duty, U.S. forces unavoidably killed a few innocents, that is unfortunate but no cause for shame. Remember, we are discussing modern war, not cricket.

Who cares. It's not a governments job to enforce it's populations philosophy on the rest of the world. It's failed at that point. Japan attacked us, slightly different.

On the other hand, if an terrorist state (e.g. Iran or North Korea) announces its intentions to spread its evil beyond its borders and acquires the means (WMDs) to do so, then the leaders of this country have not only the right but the moral obligation to smash those threats and do so in a way that assures total and long-term victory.

Our nation HAS NO MORAL OBLIGATIONS. A government has rules it must follow, it does not run off morality. A government is not a person.

[Myron Azov]

Is there ever an enemy whose citizens don't contribute to its economic vitality?

Not all of our enemies are nations. Consider the late Timothy McVeigh.

Does this mean that it was entirely ethical for foreign nations to destroy American civilians on those occasions when America unethically threatened some other nation's security?

What occasions are you talking about? America has never unethically threatened some other nation's security. If Country X is a slave state attempting to export its tyranny to Country Y, then Y has the right to take Action 1: to eliminate the threat by means of total destruction. If America = X, then 1 is appropriate. But this condition has never been the case.

I believe blackdiamond's point was that bombing civilians when there is no other winning alternative is not a validation of Myron's idea that one can morally attack any threatening enemy's civilian population despite technology that allows the breaking of wills and destruction of warring capacity without turning civilians into radioactive ooze.

Where is this marvelous technology? And why isn't it now being deployed in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and North Korea?

Breaking an enemy's will to fight is not the same as breaking an enemy's reason to fight. Breaking a will to fight is never an true end to hostilities.

Fine. But first things first. After our superb missile commanders are finished breaking the enemy's will, teams of philosophers and educators can embark to the devastated land to spread right reason.

The disturbing thing there is that you imply that it doesn't need to be said that capitalist heroes targeting Vietnamese civilians wouldn't necessarily be evil...

I have answered this point in Post #23 on this thread: "I would like nothing better than for Kim to take a long ocean voyage so that we could drop a missile on him with minimal collateral damage. But if he won’t leave the security of his slave state, we have every right to drop bombs in his congested capital if that’s what it takes to gain victory."

Furthermore, if killing Kim doesn't end the Korean communist threat to us, we have the right and the obligation to ourselves to bomb the populated areas of North Korea until the whiff of a threat is but a memory.

As David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute put it in the context of the Middle East, “Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people. The inevitable deaths of a few truly innocent Palestinians should not stop Israel from doing whatever it takes to eliminate its enemies; any deaths of innocents would be the moral responsibility not of Israel but of the guilty majority of Palestinians that seek to destroy it.” http://ari.convio.net/site/News2?JServSess...ws_iv_ctrl=1223

Whatever it takes.

[Capitalism Forever]

Our nation HAS NO MORAL OBLIGATIONS. A government has rules it must follow, it does not run off morality.

I think some reformulation is in order here. A government should be based on individual rights, which in turn are based on an objective morality--so, in this sense, the government does run off morality. On the other hand, there is much more to morality than individual rights, and a good leader or officer will need it in order to be able to do his job well (so this is another sense in which the government runs off morality), but that part should not be legislated or enforced on civilians by the government (which brings us to the sense in which government does not run off morality).

[KendallJ]

The reason i did not respond to you in the first place, Kendall, is that i could tell you have not followed the debate between me and Myron. Your last post has just confirmed this. The only reason i will comment on it now is because other people who could join the debate at this point might also start getting the impression that i am advocating "proportionate" force, or that i am against Israel's use of "disproportionate" force. I am not. I already went through this effort of showing Myron that this is a strawman, and i believe he understands that since he hasn't been going back to the task of singing to the choir in his recent posts, unlike you, Kendall.

Let's see if this confuses you:

1. I support everything Israel is doing in Lebanon (and Palestine), including the actions that have resulted in civilian deaths!

2. I support what America did to Japan in the second world war.

3. I think America / Israel should bomb Syria and Iran (and if necessary, even North Korea).

So, what's my problem then? You tell me. First understand the debate; then join in.

Can i also ask, by the way, why you believe you can order other debaters not to answer some questions asked by other debaters?

Diamond,

1. I read the thread from the beginning before I posted, which is why I questioned whether you had read the Brook article. It seems strange to me that you question wether Myron has read it, but have yet to pull any principles from it to defend your position. In fact, Brook argues against both "proportionality" and "discrimination" as invalid concepts coming from the Just War Theory, saying in effect (Hunterrose, pay attention) even if there is technology which would allow for discrimination that it is an invalid concept from which to evaluate tactics. Thus, whether you should target destruction of a civilian population is at the option of those prosecuting the war. Myron is simply extending that option to its fullest extent. Diamond, while you have certainly questioned the limits of that option, I have yet to see you offer the principle by which you would limit that option.

2. You're the one who seems to think I haven't read the thread, so I'd ask you to offer evidence to prove your assertion, rather than you asking me to disprove it.

3. The point which I disputed upon entering the debate (your claim of WWII revisionism) was a stand-alone point that doesn't require your main point to substantiate or not, so even though I had read the thread, I didn't need to have that context to dispute your claim of "revisionist" history of WWII tactics.

4. If you are that threatened by my rhetorical use of the imperative tense, I'd remind you that they are only words and both you and Myron can ignore them if you so choose. I was helping him, just in case he hadn't seen that you are trying to insert the concept of discrimination into the argument, so I doubt he'll be upset by it. I didn't direct it at you, so if you're offended, well, get over it. But then since you seem to want to dictate the terms under which I can join the debate, I must assume you simply want reserve that priviledge for yourself.

Edited July 20, 2006 by KendallJ

[Myron Azov]

One of my problem with Myron's logic he's been posting in this and other threads is that the rest of the world should be attacking us. We are the biggest gun, we are the biggest economic force, we use our political muscle to enforce our ideology on the rest of the world, we are the biggest threat to ever other nation.

The only nations America threatens are those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. Anyone abroad who fears an invasion from United States in all probability is an enemy of reason, freedom and capitalism.

A pre-emptive strike against America only makes sense for the rest of the world.

Of course, Osama bin Laden shares such views.

It leads then that the rest of the world is our biggest threat, so we should just bomb Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and probably even Australia and just get it over with. No more threats.

Strawman. In my posts to this forum, I have listed only a few countries that the U.S. must consider as foes. Lathanar imagines he can score debate points against a position that nobody in this forum has taken.

Who cares. It's not a governments job to enforce it's populations philosophy on the rest of the world. It's failed at that point. Japan attacked us, slightly different.

Again, Lathanar argues against a strawman. He inserts himself into a discussion aleph_0 and I were having without even bothering to understand the point of the conversation. The question is: was the force used by the United States in the Vietnam War defensive? Answer: yes, because it was in response to an attempt to impose a communist dictatorship on the people of Vietnam, i.e. aggression. It does not matter that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese had not attacked U.S. territory in the 1960s. If I see a stranger on the street victimized by a purse snatcher, my tackling the robber and returning the purse to the owner constitutes defensive force even though the robber up to that point has done nothing to me.

Our nation HAS NO MORAL OBLIGATIONS. A government has rules it must follow, it does not run off morality. A government is not a person.

A government does not run off morality? Is he serious? Can a government evade moral law, abandon ethical principles and act on whatever set of “rules” it chooses to follow? That may be the government of Idi Amin and Pol Pot, but it is not any “government” I wish to be associated with.

[RationalBiker]

Moderator Note:

I can see the heat simmering a little in here and I would ask folks to take a deep breath and resume on the issues, not each other.

[KendallJ]

It is evil to MAKE EVERY EFFORT to kill someone who is not a threat to you. It is not evil to kill him (unavoidably) in your attempt to kill or destroy someone who is a threat to you.

Or let me put it this way:

When you are in war with an enemy, you CAN (rightfully) kill innocent people. This does not mean you (necessarily) SHOULD. The latter is what you are suggesting from your statement of "making every effort" to do so, and you are clearly wrong.

Ok, let's go back to blackdiamond's original assertion. Instead of Myron defending his position and Diamond sniping it, please, blackdiamond, state a position.

Should implies an ethical principle. So what is it? If one "CAN rightfully kill innocent people", when should you and when shouldn't you? The Brook article essentially articulates this:

To fight and win a proper war of self-defense requires two basic courses of action: (1) objectively identify the nature of the threat and (2) do whatever is necessary to destroy the threat and return to normal life, with minimum loss of life and liberty on the part of the citizens of the defending nation.

The specific identity of any given threat and what is necessary to destroy it is not the province of morality; it requires specialized cultural and military knowledge (whereas morality applies only to the basic principles governing human life). But the morality of rational self-interest provides crucial, principled guidance in identifying and then destroying a threat. It holds that the identification of a threat, just like any identification, can be achieved only by means of a scrupulously rational process—unclouded by considerations such as an unwarranted affinity for religion, or the desire to be liked by foreign leaders, or the dogma that all cultures are equal. As for what to do about any given threat, egoism gives the crucial sanction, in enemy territory, to kill and destroy whomever and whatever needs to be killed and destroyed in order to end the threat to the victim country. Such a policy, contrary to Just War Theory, upholds both the principle of justice and the principle of individual rights. Depending on the circumstances, legitimate targets can include the leaders, soldiers, and civilians of the enemy nation.

What the article clearly states is that the decision to target a civilian population is not a province of a moral situation. It is not a "should" issue. Ethically, and morally, any targeting of civilians is a military tactic, and the option is up to the military strategists prosecuting the war, once a morally justified war has been initiated. But that they would be morally justified, up to and including, the wholesale destruction of civilian populations.

To that extent, blackdiamond wants a "should". Myron advocates it as a clear tactic, and blackdiamond says that it is "quite a big step in the wrong direction". Brook says, an objective assessment of the situation tells you what tactics to use, and those options include everything up to and including wholesale civilian destruction. One might call Myron overzealous, but frankly its one of the options. Certainly the Brook article would not fault any military commander for making an assessment of the situation and "going overboard".

Blackdiamond says Myron's clearly wrong (an ethical judgement), but this is contrary to the Brook article. Blackdiamond, what is your ethical basis? If this is just a discussion of the objective principles by which one would decide, then you two are closer than you think, but until Blackdiamond states his ethical principle, then frankly Myron is closer to the Brook position, and blackdiamond appears to be arguing from mixed premises.

[~Sophia~]

What the article clearly states is that the decision to target a civilian population is not a province of a moral situation.

I strongly disagree that if you declare a war as moral (which it would be in self defense) then whatever actions you take to assure victory is moral. This touches on the issue of individual rights.

I make a distinction between unavoidable war casualties and specific targeting of civilian population.

Rand clearly states that:

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life on another. [ibid., 6.]

Then later:

The very right upon which he acts defines the same right for another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. [ibid., 6]

And

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill – but the inalienable individual rights of another man to live. This is not a compromise between two rights – but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society – but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society – but is implicit in the definition of your own right. [ibid., 7]

Now let’s now examine the topic of self defense. Again I will quote Rand.

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. [VOS, 146; pb 108](bold mine)

This does not apply to the civilian population, the innocent women and children living under some dictatorship, enslaved, who have from little to none influence over the actions of their government and no means to leave the country. They are not the initiators of the force. The act of killing them is not done in retaliation.

Remember that private citizens – whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers – have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. [ibid., 40]

It is true that nuclear weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate. But it makes no difference to a man whether he is killed by a nuclear bomb or dynamite or an old-fashioned club. [ibid., 42]

If nuclear weapons are a dreadful threat and mankind cannot afford war any longer, then mankind cannot afford statism any longer. Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force - outside of inside his own country. [ibid., 43]

Death of innocent civilians during war is unavoidable. Ayn Rand said that wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate (the first being dictatorship). But to specifically target the civilians; the women and the children; to kill the innocent as a tactic – to me it is in violation of individual human rights.