National security

[Eurynomus]

Could somebody please objectively define "national security"? To what degree must a country pose a threat to the United States for it to take action?

I have heard it said that waving a gun at somebody, although not firing it, is initiating force against them. I don't understand how this works. What is the equivalent of "waving a gun" from nation to nation?

If it is Kim Jong-Il saying "people of the United States, we are going to nuke you," then I can understand. But where is the line drawn? What if the United States receives intelligence, although not publicly stated by North Korea, that they planned to nuke the US?

Another thing I have not been able to understand is how Rand was not critical [as far as I have been able to find -- if somebody has evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated, and clear things up] of US involvement in Europe during WWII, which served to stop the spread of fascism, but was critical of US invovlement in Vietnam when [although not explicitly] it served to stop the spread of communism. Isn't the spread of communism a threat to national security?

[Cogito]

The involvement of the US in WWII was to retaliate against those who had attacked the US. Nothing of the sort happened with 'Nam.

[softwareNerd]

Here are some references...

There still are people in this country who lost loved ones in World War I. There are more people who carry the unhealed wounds of World War II, of Korea, of Vietnam. There are the disabled, the crippled, the mangled of those wars' battlefields. No one has ever told them why they had to fight nor what their sacrifices accomplished; it was certainly not "to make the world safe for democracy"—look at that world now.

Just as Wilson, a "liberal" reformer, led the United States into World War I, "to make the world safe for democracy"—so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another "liberal" reformer, led it into World War H, in the name of the "Four Freedoms."

Observe the double-standard switch of the anti-concept of "isolationism." The same intellectual groups (and even some of the same aging individuals) who coined that anti-concept in World War II—and used it to denounce any patriotic opponent of America's self-immolation

[Eurynomus]

The involvement of the US in WWII was to retaliate against those who had attacked the US

I'm not asking this to challenge you, I'm legitimately curious -- had Germany attacked the US prior to its declaration of war upon us?

Still, could somebody please explain to me how this waving of the gun as being an instance of using force against someone thing works?

Take North Korea, for example. Is she not waving around a gun [nuclear weapons] while at the same time threatening the US? Kim Jong Il has not said that he would use the nukes on us YET, but hasn't he made clear on many occasions his sentiments of hatred and wishful destruction of the US? Does that not qualify as a threat to national security by Objectivist standards?

And on the issue of communism during the Cold War -- why should we not have waged total war on the USSR from the outset? I believe it was Lenin's policy, which subsequent leaders of the USSR adopted, that stated that communism must win its citizens internally, through internal revolution -- and Marx had stated that this must be done in the most advanced country [having the United States in mind]. So, if we know that a goal of the communists, one which was attempted many times, was to incite revolution from within the United States for a change in government, shouldn't we have destroyed that ideology from its source, just as ARI is advocating we do with Iran in regards to Islamic totalitarianism?

I'm curious about the communism issue, but I am especially curious about the waving of the gun thing -- so if you prefer to answer only one of the two questions and you don't mind, could you please elaborate on the waving of the gun issue first?

[DavidOdden]

Could somebody please objectively define "national security"? To what degree must a country pose a threat to the United States for it to take action?

This is entirely the wrong way to look at it. It is not a matter of drawing some bright line and saying "Do this, you're okay; do that, we attack". You have to look at all of the facts, not just isolated facts. Actions taken by Iran under Ahmedinejad mean entirely different things than they did under the rule of Khatami. The principle is, if the facts indicate that they are likely to attack us.

[Cogito]

I'm not asking this to challenge you, I'm legitimately curious -- had Germany attacked the US prior to its declaration of war upon us?

Germany had not, but Japan, Germany's ally in the war and essentially a part of the same fighting force, had. If the British airforce attakcs the US, should we refrain from attacking their navy? In my eyes it is the same issue on a larger scale.

[Eurynomus]

Germany had not, but Japan, Germany's ally in the war and essentially a part of the same fighting force, had. If the British airforce attakcs the US, should we refrain from attacking their navy? In my eyes it is the same issue on a larger scale.

Oh okay, thanks for your response and I believe you are right. I only asked because before Germany declared war on us several days after Pearl Harbor, there were still large factions of formerly strict isolationists who believed we should have at that point gone to war only with Japan because it was Japan who attacked us, but still not with Germany.

And D.O., thank you for summing that up for me.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Germany had not, but Japan, Germany's ally in the war and essentially a part of the same fighting force, had. If the British airforce attakcs the US, should we refrain from attacking their navy? In my eyes it is the same issue on a larger scale.

Not exactly. The Tripartite Pact to which Germany and Japan were parties did not even require Germany to declare war against the United States in the event of a Japanese declaration of war against the US. Even the reasons for the Japanese attack and German declaration were different.

The big problem with analyzing the "morality" of US involvement in both world wars is the US was never an original combattant. Instead, in both wars, internal and external political forces in the US pushed the US towards non-combat support of one side at first, which in turn forced the enemies of that side (The Central and Axis Powers) to inevitable war with the United States not of their own choosing.

In WWI Germany had no choice but to seek some method of removing US support of Britain and France and thus their attempts to court Japan and Mexico to invade the US, hence the Zimmermann telegram. Similarly efforts to stop transport of war material led to the "atrocity" of unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania.

In WWII similar US support and ties to Britain forced Germany to the conclusion that war was inevitable in part because of US plans to send combat troops to England as well as strong British political pressure on Roosevelt both before and after Pearl Harbor to concentrate his efforts in Europe not the Pacific.

This is the essential problem with trying to define when the "moral" level of national security threat has occurred and thus military action is justified. In international relations you have a complexity which tends to defy easy moral qualification.

[Eurynomus]

So then, how are we supposed to evaluate these situations?

[DavidOdden]

So then, how are we supposed to evaluate these situations?

Using knowledge of the relevant facts, which is primarily history. Defending the nation against attack primarily involves having a rational policy (which we do not), but also requires a large dose of information. Needless to say, there also has to be a policy about that information -- we need factually accurate information which reflects reality, not just information that pushes a particular perspective.

[BrassDragon]

I agree with much of what has been said, but not all of it.

Could somebody please objectively define "national security"? To what degree must a country pose a threat to the United States for it to take action?

A nation should act in its own rational self-interest. Note that any country that is initiating force surrenders its moral right to sovereignty; it is then legitimate to act against it if it is in our rational self-interest. As DavidOdden said, where exactly that point comes depends on looking at a lot of complex factors and deciding when it is probably best to take action.

I have heard it said that waving a gun at somebody, although not firing it, is initiating force against them. I don't understand how this works. What is the equivalent of "waving a gun" from nation to nation?

If it is Kim Jong-Il saying "people of the United States, we are going to nuke you," then I can understand. But where is the line drawn? What if the United Statesreceives intelligence, although not publicly stated by North Korea, that they planned to nuke the US?

Again, a country doesn't need to cross some particular boundary to count as having "waved a gun." We can legitimately take action against any immoral government that initiates force, if we feel like it's in our self-interest, but what if a government were to exist that was completely moral, which we thought might nuke us? Really, the same standard applies. We act if it is in our rational self-interest, i.e. there is clear evidence of a plan to attack (either a hidden plot or open verbal theats, such as the Iranian dictator saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth).

Another thing I have not been able to understand is how Rand was not critical [as far as I have been able to find -- if somebody has evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated, and clear things up] of US involvement in Europe during WWII, which served to stop the spread of fascism, but was critical of US invovlement in Vietnam when [although not explicitly] it served to stop the spread of communism.

It likely was in our rational self-interest to intervene in WWII. It clearly was not in Vietnam, which we lost.

Isn't the spread of communism a threat to national security?

It seems that we were wise to let Russia collapse from the inside without waging a costly war. Is, and was, communism a threat to national security? Ask yourself that question - I think the answer, at this point, is obvious.

The involvement of the US in WWII was to retaliate against those who had attacked the US. Nothing of the sort happened with 'Nam.

This is what I specifically disagree with. The bronze-age mentality of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is not a moral justification; retaliation was not an excuse for WWII. Rather, as I've said, whether or not we acted in our rational self-interest is the criteria for judgement. I'd say we did - Japan and Germany are prosperous and relatively free capitalist nations, not fascist dictatorships; they're also two of our closest allies.

So then, how are we supposed to evaluate these situations?

What DavidOdden said in the post before this one, and what I've said above. If you have further questions, feel free to shoot.

*Edited for omitted word

Edited November 10, 2006 by BrassDragon

[Eurynomus]

I actually have a question somewhat similar to this -- I think I ask it a lot but never really get a good answer... or at least, one that is worth remembering.

Considering that nations today [whether they should or not] are becoming more interdependent, one nation's extreme poverty can affect the others. As poverty is a breeding ground for war and violence, this can eventually pose a threat to us. What should we do in these circumstances? Wait it out and see, or would it be permissible to donate money to these countries to help them out of their situation, as it would be in our self-interest?

[BrassDragon]

"Donating" money won't likely decrease the level of poverty; economic expansion is the only solution to poverty. And the best way to guarantee economic expansion is to make sure the country operates capitalistically, and let American or domestic (to the country) entrepreneurs and corporations get to work.

It's permissable if you want to donate some of your money, too, but not if you tax me (steal from me) to do it.

[softwareNerd]

As poverty is a breeding ground for war and violence, this can eventually pose a threat to us.

The danger is overstated. For instance, if the U.S. were to reduce Iran and Syria to the relative poverty of Afghanistan, they would be less of a threat rather than being more of a threat. Also, there are many countries that are extremely poor and are zero threat to other countries.

If one wants to donate, the best way would be to follow the maxim of "don't give me a fish; teach me to fish". This would translate to: don't give aid that will be consumed with nothing to show for it. Decades ago, one might have taken the attitude that "we have to stop them starving before we can do anything else". History has shown that this does not work. The best type of charity to poor countries would be something that gets them to change their political system toward one the respects individual rights. For evidence, see Ireland, China and India.

[Eurynomus]

Okay right, I was going to add as a subnote to that post "as long as it comes out of PRIVATE charity, not taxes" -- but I wanted to see what the response would be without that, because, although I don't see it to be correct, I wanted to see if anybody would make the argument that the government using our tax dollars to fund aid to these countries could be seen along the same lines as funding a military -- because it's in our self defense. But you are both right, the dangers of poverty are overstated... and good point about Afghanistan, sN.

This brings me to another question, thinking about poverty.. but not exactly along the same lines, and maybe this is deviating from the original topic of the post but whatever, correct me if any of the following statements are flawed:

If a free country is attacked or threatened, especially by an oppressive country, it is within that free country's moral bounds to destroy that oppressed country's leadership, as it has no right to exist. After, the free country is not morally OBLIGED to stay in the country it has just laid waste to, correct?

If this is correct, isn't it still within the free country's SELF-INTEREST to stay within that country? I am just thinking along the lines of Iraq. If, instead of waging the "Just War" in that region, as we have been doing, we pursued victory, what would we do after? A pursuit of victory would require some of the same tactics (although probably more up to date) as used in Germany and Japan in WWII -- carpet bombings, etc. to make clear to the people what the consequences of hostility toward America are. I would like to think it is possible to turn Iraq around just as Japan and Germany have been turned around. But, Japan and Germany were first utterly devastated, then extensively occupied before they could make that change. So, although it would not be our moral obligation to do so, would it not be in our self interest to occupy Iraq after the war? .. same goes for if we were to do the same against Iran, Syria, etc.?

[softwareNerd]

... would it not be in our self interest to occupy Iraq after the war?

The problem with a situation like Iraq is that each question is made necessary by some previous bad decision. So, it's always the case of: "yeah, we messed up, but what do we do now". In such situations. So, it's tough to speak of it without starting yet another Iraq-war thread.

However, in general terms, if one has occupied a country, it would make sense to keep law and order for a short while, as they write a new constitution, hold elections and take charge. Suppose we've thrashed the enemy and killed guys like Saddam and Sadr, given them a provisional constitution that is based on individual rights, and selected a team of rights-respecting locals to run the provisional government. What next? All they have to do is start to take charge and write some permanent laws. If they do not do that, how is it our problem any more than all the other nuts who're killing each other all over the world?

[Eurynomus]

Wouldn't it be our problem in that if they DONT start following the rule of law, etc., it is more than likely just going to become another breeding ground for terrorism and we will have to go to war again? Or is that incorrect?

[softwareNerd]

In general terms, one goes in, provides some law and order, and let them take over. If some of them aren't cooperating, it makes sense to kill them and see if those that remain can get their act together. If some more start to act funny, it makes sense to kill them and then see if those that remain can get their act together. The current situation in Iraq is not because the U.S. does not have the military might to knock off its enemies one by one. Instead, we have used our military to prop up a government that includes people who want to destroy us -- how wise is that?

[Eurynomus]

Okay, that makes sense to me, finally. Thanks sNerd.

[Rommel]

One must also take into account who gets the money in humanitarian aid. The leaders of the country, and if a leader is say on the level of...Kim Jong Il, then perhaps it is not he wisest policy to keep appeasing him and appeasing him.

On the waving a gun topic. I think that's enough. I for one to not want to wait to be attacked to do anything, sort of the wave/fire analogy we seem to have been using.