Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

[blackdiamond]

Blackdiamond,

You have made my position into something it is not and I am not going to spend my time and energy to defend myself against a straw man of this proportion

You know what, Sophia? I'll give you some free advice. When you find yourself always accusing others of misrepresenting your position in debate (strawmen?), you should consider the possibility that the fault might be in your writing. It's possible - just possible - that you are the one who frequently miscommunicates your position to others.

I have not claimed that in lifeboat situations life is not person's standard of value. Why would you assign such a rediculous position to me given what I have written?

Hence my straw man "of this proportion", right?

What you have written, is this:

Blackdiamiond,

Lifeboat is the sphere of amoral. You should then check the conditions for amorality.

Amorality begins when:

- life is no longer your standard of value - eg. you decided to end your life

- you are not able to excercise your volitional capacity freely - your actions are not a matter of choice

- no moral option is available to you eventhough you are free to choose

Anyone who reads the above can reasonably conclude that you are saying that in a lifeboat situation, life is no longer your standard of value. Whenever you say "the conditions for x are ...", it normally means ALL of what follows are the necessary conditions for x, not ANY of what follows.

And in case you argue that i should have read your other statements to interpret you correctly, my answer is that i did, and it still meant the same thing to me. Earlier, you wrote:

There is a precise definition of what a life boat scenario is and what the defining characteristics are.

Ask any independent person to read that and see if they won't interpret it the way I did [The "characteristics" or "conditions" have to be all present in "a" lifeboat scenario or a DEFINITION of a life boat scenario]. As such, there is no need to be angry with (or resentful to) someone who reads it that way; if you meant something else, then this is the fault of your writing style, not mine, not any of your readers. I hope you will be less generous in your handing out of strawmen accusations in future.

Lifeboat situations involve killing/harming another innocent and that is why amorality becomes relevant (something which is not relevant when facing non-innocent). For an action to be amoral ANY one of the 3 conditions I listed must be present. It is obvious that in lifeboat scenario the person is trying to save his life - thus he must value keeping his life.

I believe you have completely misunderstood what a "lifeboat scenario" is and (apparently) where the expression came from. It is hardly "obvious" that in a lifeboat scenario the person is necessarily trying to save his life. He can indeed choose to die in such a situation; that's what a life boat scenario is about. Your interpretation of a lifeboat scenario is an explicit contradiction of what Ayn Rand said it is, so I'm not sure what you meant when you said this is Objectivism's definition of it.

Clearly, you are aggressively defending a misinformed position, and it is extremely difficult for one to get past your attitude.

[~Sophia~]

When you find yourself always accusing others of misrepresenting your position in debate (strawmen?), you should consider the possibility that the fault might be in your writing. It's possible - just possible - that you are the one who frequently miscommunicates your position to others.

I have summarized my position in as far as going to post #270. If something is not clear to you - the proper response is to ASK for clarification instead of making assumptions about another's position.

Anyone who reads the above can reasonably conclude that you are saying that in a lifeboat situation, life is no longer your standard of value.

To assume that all 3 must be present is not a reasonable conclusion at all and especially not when one considers all of the context. If you look at 2 and 3 - those are completely different conditions and you can not have one and at the same time the other (you either can choose freely or you can't).

I believe you have completely misunderstood what a "lifeboat scenario" is and (apparently) where the expression came from.

There are many sources here and on THE FORUM on this very topic which I think you should examine.

Edited June 7, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Alon Tsin]

...Obviously much of this is contextual, based on how I rationally perceive the threat. But assuming that I came to the conclusion that the threat is real, do I then have unlimited freedom to use force as I see fit? Furthermore, if you perceived a threat, reacted preemptively, and turned out to be wrong, should you then be held morally accountable for what you did?

If you come to the rational conclusion that you are threatened, You have the right to use force as you rationally see fit. You also must hold moral responsibility for any decision you make(as is true for anything you do in your life).

If I had a heated argument with a neighbor this morning, and in the afternoon I saw him purchasing a gun, do I have a right then to preemptively strike him

From this example, you cannot rationally reach a conclusion that the man wants to use the gun on you (If we stick to this example and have no other relevant information about the neighbor ). If you are still concerned, you can call the police or purchase a gun yourself to defend yourself.

...Or if I saw two unfriendly looking men approach me in a dark alley, do I have a right to preemptively shoot them with my tazer

How do you define "unfriendly looking"? If those men have knives, or they verbally threaten you then you should strike them since you can rationally know that they mean you harm. If you don't know what those men want, you can ask them, or warn them before using your Tazer.

I answered your two examples to show that (Unless you have no time to think and must react instantly) you can always act in a way that will be right and responsible.

----------------------------------------------

To conclude - If you are certain that you are threatened ("certain"- by means of logic and reason) you have the freedom to act against the threat as you see fit ("as you see fit" - again as concluded by means of reason and logic). Because you act by means of logic and reason, you should have no problem to take responsibility for you actions .

To extrapolate to the case of Iran - Since Iran has threatened the US and Israel repeatedly, since the country is a theocracy headed by a madman, Since the country openly supports terrorist organizations attacking Israel, US and their allies - You can logically infer that Iran is an immediate threat. Therefore you are entitled to strike at it preemptively.

How to do so reasonably, now that's the question that this thread is all about...

[blackdiamond]

To assume that all 3 must be present is not a reasonable conclusion at all and especially not when one considers all of the context. If you look at 2 and 3 - those are completely different conditions and you can not have one and at the same time the other (you either can choose freely or you can't).

It's not a reasonable conclusion only IF we begin with the premise that the writer (you) can not make a mistake in her reasoning (including presenting a contradiction). I hold no such premise for any one, so I will read your statement as it is written (in English) and interpret it the way it should be interpreted before I begin to examine your points. If I see an error from your point 1, I need not proceed to point 2 and 3. I will immediately say why 1 is untrue in that sentence, and if it is presented as a necessary condition, that is enough for me to show that you are mistaken in your identification (of defining characteristics). If you do not want to be misunderstood, write properly. Understanding a sentence the way it is written is NOT making an assumption; it is understanding a sentence the way it is written. If you see that your point has been misunderstood because of your poor sentence construction or wrong English, it is not the time to just accuse people of making assumptions, or of building straw men, or of ignoring the context of everything else you have written in 100 posts. It is time to apologise for your lack of clarity (or wrong English).

Read the forum rules (on that issue of writing).

There are many sources here and on THE FORUM on this very topic which I think you should examine.

I need only examine what Ayn Rand has said, and if it contradicts what you have just said, there is nothing that this or THE FORUM can do to change that (since it is presented as Objectivism's definition). If Ayn Rand was in a lifeboat scenario with her husband, Frank (in which only one of them can be saved, etc etc), do you believe she would necessarily act to save her life instead of her husband's? That's a rhetorical question (if you know what she herself has said). And it contradicts what you just said about a lifeboat scenario, no matter which forum or FORUM you got it from. It's that simple.

[~Sophia~]

It's not a reasonable conclusion only IF we begin with the premise that the writer (you) can not make a mistake in her reasoning (including presenting a contradiction).

What you assumed is not reasonable given the whole moral dilema here is about the fact that two people value their life and want to keep it - but both can't. Even if you did have such a thought - just simply by reading further into the SAME post and seeing that the two last points can not co-exists at the same time - one can not conclude what you did.

And it is not a crime to make a mistake but I resent your charge that I am somehow asking for a straw man - that misinterpretation is somehow a given based on what I have written. It is possible that I may not always be clear in my meaning but the proper thing is to ASK for clarification.

If I see an error from your point 1, I need not proceed to point 2 and 3. I will immediately say why 1 is untrue in that sentence, and if it is presented as a necessary condition, that is enough for me to show that you are mistaken in your identification (of defining characteristics).

When you respond to a post - you have to read and try to understand the whole thing as presented in context. NOT just one paragraph or statement.

If you do not want to be misunderstood, write properly.

Right because it is my fault that you decided to ignore the whole post before responding to one of its components.

I need only examine what Ayn Rand has said, and if it contradicts what you have just said, there is nothing that this or THE FORUM can do to change that (since it is presented as Objectivism's definition).

But your understanding of what Ayn Rand said is incorrect and if my explanation is not sufficient - it is a good idea to consult others (many of whom have been studying Oism for longer than both me and you have been in existance).

[Marc K.]

Wow, this thread is prolific. I'm still stuck on page 15. You guys have moved on to emergency situations and taken a step back into discrimination and proportionality...and now back to responsibility, perfect timing.

On an island with two people living on it - what exactly would those people be doing to exercise their right to liberty? They would be freely going about their business. Doing everything freedom alows them to do.

Yes, as long as they are free they go about their business. Now, what if they are not free? What if one decides to chain the other? The other retains the right to be free and he must exercise it. If he wants to be free, he must either escape from or kill his oppressor. Just as each of us is responsible to take the actions that support our lives, so each of us is responsible to exercise our individual rights.

In case of the right to life - those people ARE keeping themeselves alive. They are taking the necessary actions to sustain their life.

In the long term?

In case of the right to life, right to liberty, and right to own property - most people are already 'excercising' those rights [...]

Are you saying that in a dictatorship most people are able to exercise their rights? Most particularly their right to liberty? This seems contrary to the definition of dictatorship.

[...] and even if they were not they would still have those rights - to be left alone.

I do agree with you that if they are not going to exercise their rights, then the only option left open to them with respect to their rights is to be left alone to sit still and die.

Dictatorial government stays in power by force and coersion.

But the people still retain the right to be free, correct? They also retain the right to form a proper government. A right they must exercise like all others. It is a sad fact of reality that it is the most difficult to exercise your rights while they are being violated. Actually this is a happy fact because it means the easiest thing to do is to respect rights.

Although there are many evil or ignorant people who help keep it a float - those who are against the government or those who are young and do not understand are not morally responsible for the mistakes of the majority.

I am going to lay out a case for responsibility, tell me with which statements you disagree:

- Every individual is responsible to take the actions that support their lives.

- Rights protect that action in a social context but you are still responsible to take that action.

- We have the right to form the government which we think will best support our lives.

- As with all other rights -- we are responsible to form the government we want.

- We are all responsible for the government we allow to exist in our names.

- If the government is not to our liking we have the right and responsibility to change it or leave.

- We are each responsible to accept the consequences of our actions.

If you disagree with any of the above, I would like to ask: do we have any responsibility with regard to government? And if a dictatorial government does exist, whose responsibility is it to change it?

Analogies are always crude instruments, however, I do think this one illustrates the options left open to innocents in a dictatorship:

A criminal breaks into your house wielding a gun. He demands that you feed and house him. If you don't or if you call the police he will kill you and your family. The criminal figures this is a great situation and he is going to stay a while. What do you do? You essentially have two choices -- resist or comply. In answer to what is the moral thing to do I'll quote Inspector from another thread:

But as long as you still draw breath, you have a moral responsibility to attempt to save your life and its values - and the presence of a gun is no excuse for defaulting on that responsibility. At every second that gun is not trained on you, you should be attempting escape or rebellion and every second it is trained on you, you should be plotting the same. The option of submitting, as anything but a momentary means of buying time to do the aforementioned, is irrational and therefore immoral.

In every dictatorship there are people living there who are morally innocent.

I agree completely (though I'm sure you and I would disagree on how many). But remember what you said:

I agree that if your self defence requires you to kill this kid in the process - you have a right to do so. But you don't have a right to kill this kid if you did not have to. There is no right of this kind ever!

So I am unclear as to why you want to point out the existence of innocent individuals in time of war. You state above that the killing of an innocent child is allowable as long as you "have to". And as long as "have to" can refer to intentionally targeting civilians in order to inflict psychological damage on complicit populations, then obviously guilt or innocence has no bearing on the matter. In the context of nations at war "have to" must refer to the moral imperative to do anything and everything in order to stop the aggression.

[Marc K.]

There is another position I would like to argue which has been alluded to by Sophia and accepted by others implicitly on both sides here, namely, that there is some conflict between the rights of men.

I submit that the rights of men do not conflict. Rights being a subset of the interests of men, this position seems to follow logically from the principle that: "There are no conflicts of interests among rational men." If someone can show me the err of my ways I am all ears.

The position, that if someone chooses to live in a dictatorship, it is their right to do so seems to accept this premise. But since rights are derived from ethical action I think it is self-contradictory to say that someone has a right to live in a dictatorship. It is like saying that someone has a right to be enslaved. Not only are these statements self-contradictory, if true, they would allow dictators and slavemasters to claim that rights are on their side. Someone may choose to suffer in these ways but I don't believe there is a right that protects that action.

If this turns into a contentious issue it should probably be moved to its own thread.

[~Sophia~]

There is another position I would like to argue which has been alluded to by Sophia and accepted by others implicitly on both sides here, namely, that there is some conflict between the rights of men.

A conflict of rights among reasonable men can only occur in the presence of force. Normally (as we all agree here that force is not how men should deal with one another) there is not one.

[blackdiamond]

What you assumed is not reasonable given the whole moral dilema here is about the fact that two people value their life and want to keep it - but both can't. Even if you did have such a thought - just simply by reading further into the SAME post and seeing that the two last points can not co-exists at the same time - one can not conclude what you did.

Look. You do make mistakes IN YOUR LOGIC, so why would it be unreasonable for me to think that you MADE A LOGICAL MISTAKE (contradicted yourself) in your last two points even if I had examined them? Why should it imply that I have misunderstood you if there is an apparent contradiction. Do you not make mistakes?

If I accept your sentence structure as correct, then the only thing I would say about your last two points is that they are illogical (which is why my understanding would not have been any different if I had examined the compatibility of your last two points). Now, I would then assume that I have just misunderstood you and proceed to ask for clarification IF I believe that you are incapable of making a logical mistake. I don't.

And it is not a crime to make a mistake but I resent your charge that I am somehow asking for a straw man - that misinterpretation is somehow a given based on what I have written.

It is. When someone says "the following are the defining characteristics (or conditions) of A lifeboat scenario ..." misinterpretation is "a given" if they intend to mean that these conditions or "defining characteristics" are actually not ALL essential in every lifeboat scenario. Two contradicting points among these conditions can then reasonably be interpreted as just two contradicting points.

It is possible that I may not always be clear in my meaning but the proper thing is to ASK for clarification.

And can you please suggest a method by which we can always know that we have misunderstood you (in order for us to always PROPERLY ask for clarification) if what you have written seems clear to us in its meaning according to the English language (but means something else only in your mind)? Why can't you be the one to simply analyse if people have misunderstood you (given your writing) instead of always jumping straight to accuse them of building straw men? Do you realise that you have probably used that term (straw man) more than everyone else on this forum combined? Doesn't that tell you something?

When you respond to a post - you have to read and try to understand the whole thing as presented in context. NOT just one paragraph or statement.

Like I said, if I read your whole statement in context, given the English you used, it simply means you have contradicted yourself.

It is YOU who can easily know you have been misunderstood, but you are putting this responsibility on those who misunderstand you to know (or feel) this, which is why your straw man accusation is so graciously abundant. That's unreasonable. You should only start accusing others of straw man constructions when you establish that your WRITING was clear enough not to be misunderstood. If you put your logic before your writing, misinterpretations are guaranteed, at least by those who do not faithfully believe that your logic is always flawless.

That's why the forum rules say what they say.

Anyway. I'm done here.

[Olex]

to Sophia:

I must add here that I was confused by the list of 3 criteria for amoral cases in your post, Sophia. I initially took them to mean A and B and C. It took me looking through a few of your following replies before I became sure that you meant them as "or" rather than "and" as I originally assumed.

I didn't go as far as assume your were correct in logic, as this is something rather hard to do with regards to a person whom I barely know. In a case of a person I did know well, I would likely have enough to data to "correct" my interpretation, but without that knowledge, I agree with blackdiamond here - your sentence structure got me confused.

[Marc K.]

No I don't because there is not any. Proportionality of force against your not-innocent attacker, the initiatior of force and discrimination against innocent bystanders are two different concepts. [emphasis added]

Well that just kills it for me. This is an impossible standard in time of war.

RationalBiker has touched on this already, but how in the world is a soldier (not to mention a bomber pilot) supposed to discriminate in the context of war? How is he to discriminate the innocent bystanders from the guilty bystanders? Because there are many evil people that support an evil regime, right? We are allowed to kill them, right? Or is it all bystanders in general that we must avoid killing? Because most of them actually are innocent? Which would then beg one more question. If this is so, then how was the evil regime allowed to come to power?

I know you are under assault Sophia and I hate to throw gas on the fire but acceptance of the policy of discrimination, a doctrine straight out of "just war theory" -- a code of self-sacrifice, is unsurprisingly self-sacrificial.

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

Find me examples from my posts here on any topic where I am being illogical. I am not saying that I am not capable of making a logical mistake but I do have certain history here.

Perhaps I should have used OR in between each points - that would have made things more clear but at the same time what you assumed of me is so unreasonable when analyzed in context that it is not reasonable to expect of me to be able to predict such a huge misunderstanding (if I did - I would have written my post with OR). First point does not fit into what I have been advocating and last two points are opposites. It is a huge stretch for someone to think that I would suggest that all 3 must be present.

And even so - it does not take much to ask: Hmm.. this seems strange to me is this.... what you mean?

Why can't you be the one to simply analyse if people have misunderstood you (given your writing) instead of always jumping straight to accuse them of building straw men?

I don't always do that. But you are doing this very often. You don't judge other's position fairly and in full context before you respond.

[Marc K.]

A conflict of rights among reasonable men can only occur in the presence of force.

So you are saying that there is such a right as the right to live in a violent dictatorship? Or the right to be enslaved?

That there is no conflict between the concept of rights and the concept of slavery?

[~Sophia~]

but how in the world is a soldier (not to mention a bomber pilot) supposed to discriminate in the context of war? How is he to discriminate the innocent bystanders from the guilty bystanders?

The context here is the decision to use nuclear weapons vs more discriminate means.

Because there are many evil people that support an evil regime, right? We are allowed to kill them, right?

Yes.

Or is it all bystanders in general that we must avoid killing?

No not all - your moral responsibility only refers to the fact that some are innocent.

Because most of them actually are innocent?

No.

Which would then beg one more question. If this is so, then how was the evil regime allowed to come to power?

By force is a general answer.

I know you are under assault Sophia and I hate to throw gas on the fire but acceptance of the policy of discrimination, a doctrine straight out of "just war theory" -- a code of self-sacrifice, is unsurprisingly self-sacrificial.

The policy of discrimination becomes self-sacrificial when combined with altruism.

Marc K, I will respond to your other post - just not tonight.

Edited June 8, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

By force is a general answer.

That's just it: that is not how dictatorships work. They don't maintain their power through naked force. They maintain it through the inaction of the populace - when people aren't willing to do something about it (usually because they don't have the proper philosophy to understand that they ought to).

[Marc K.]

The context here is the decision to use nuclear weapons vs more discriminate means.

Oh. I thought the concept of discrimination referred to the "moral" imperative to discriminate between the guilty and innocent and not kill the innocent else you be immoral. But I can flow with the punches.

Since nuclear weapons are not discriminate and do not discriminate at all, the obvious question to ask is: is it ever moral to use nuclear weapons? Is it ever moral to intentionally target civilians? If yes to either, then is this idea of discrimination a moral principle or is war an amoral situation?

your moral responsibility only refers to the fact that some are innocent.

And I should avoid killing the innocent, right?

If so, how do I accomplish that? How do I determine who is innocent and who is guilty on the field of battle?

Do the innocent have any moral responsibility not to put themselves in harm's way? Or any moral responsibility to identify themselves as innocent.

[blackdiamond]

I resigned from the thread because it had side-tracked into something else.

Since you've addressed me, I'll respond. Hopefully it's my last response, and you can continue right back on track with the others.

Blackdiamond,

Find me examples from my posts here on any topic where I am being illogical. I am not saying that I am not capable of making a logical mistake but I do have certain history here.

The irony is that in this very post you are being illogical. (I only say it because you have asked me to point out an example).

How?

You are demanding that you should be given the benefit of the doubt when you say something that sounds logically fallacious because you have "certain history here". But THIS contradicts the fact that you do not apparently consider others' "certain history here" before you dish out your straw man accusations in every other post. Inspector has probably had a billion posts or something on this forum and it is quite clear that he does not normally misrepresent the position of his opponents in order to attack a false, simpler position (straw man fallacy). And yet you quickly and constantly accuse him and others of this "logical mistake" (fallacy), and they always come back to show you that they did not misrepresent your position at all, at least from what you wrote.

Is this not a logical contradiction?

[~Sophia~]

Mark,

I think I don't understand your point.

Is this a rational decision to become an oppressor?

When I encounter a man on a train I don't go on stealing his wallet not because he is awake and can protect his property... I would not do so even if he was deeply asleep. As a rational person I respect other's rights.

Are you saying that in a dictatorship most people are able to exercise their rights? Most particularly their right to liberty? This seems contrary to the definition of dictatorship.

No but the fact that they are not able is not an excuse for me to violate their rights.

I do agree with you that if they are not going to exercise their rights, then the only option left open to them with respect to their rights is to be left alone to sit still and die.

That is not what I ment. Rights are moral claims to be left alone by others so you can take the actions dictated by the requirements of your suvival.

I am going to lay out a case for responsibility, tell me with which statements you disagree:

- Every individual is responsible to take the actions that support their lives.

Agree.

- Rights protect that action in a social context but you are still responsible to take that action.

Agree.

- We have the right to form the government which we think will best support our lives.

We - meaning each person. Agree.

- As with all other rights -- we are responsible to form the government we want.

Am I in control of other people's choices? I would like to form and support a government I want... it is just not within my control what others arround me choose to do (is it in yours? Do you live under an Objectivist government?). As I do not live under a dictatorship and can speak freely - I advocate my values to others but that has very little influence.

- We are all responsible for the government we allow to exist in our names.

Do I, personally me, have influence over the nature of my government? No. Can I personally do something to change the things I don't like - like get rid of taxes or socialized medicine? No. Do I hold myself responsible for what it is? No. What can I do if Canada decides to invade US tomorrow (makes me laugh but I will keep it)? The only thing I can do is leave.

If I was living under a dictatorship I would not be able to leave. Should I then kill myself because others arround me are irrational? Do I deserve to die because of the irrationality of others? What moral crime have I personally commited; what vice of mine caused the situation for which now I am responsible?

- If the government is not to our liking we have the right and responsibility to change it or leave.

I would like to find a rational country or an island with rational people. Do you know one?

- We are each responsible to accept the consequences of our actions.

Yes except my actions have little influence over the nature of my government.

If you disagree with any of the above, I would like to ask: do we have any responsibility with regard to government?

Yes we have a responsiblity to advocate what is right to others trying to gain enough support so that we can make a change in our government. But if we fail to influence a change because of the irrationality of others - we are not responsible for what resulted from THEIR irrationality.

A person can only be responsible for something which is within their control.

You state above that the killing of an innocent child is allowable as long as you "have to". And as long as "have to" can refer to intentionally targeting civilians in order to inflict psychological damage on complicit populations, then obviously guilt or innocence has no bearing on the matter.

Taking another innocent life is amoral ONLY IF that is the only way one can save himself.

You are demanding that you should be given the benefit of the doubt when you say something that sounds logically fallacious because you have "certain history here".

My only 'demand' is that you consider the whole of my post/argument before you decide to respond to one paragraph or line of what I wrote. Nothing more.

Edited June 8, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Since nuclear weapons are not discriminate and do not discriminate at all, the obvious question to ask is: is it ever moral to use nuclear weapons?

yes

Is it ever moral to intentionally target civilians?

yes

If yes to either, then is this idea of discrimination a moral principle or is war an amoral situation?

A war can become an amoral situation.

How do I determine who is innocent and who is guilty on the field of battle?

You don't have to. I am only asking to not ignore the fact that they exist and take that into consideration.

Do the innocent have any moral responsibility not to put themselves in harm's way? Or any moral responsibility to identify themselves as innocent.

What exactly could a kid do?

Edited June 8, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Oh. I thought the concept of discrimination referred to the "moral" imperative to discriminate between the guilty and innocent and not kill the innocent else you be immoral.

You are right but I am not advocating sorting through the civilan population to determine who is innocent and who is guilty.

[blackdiamond]

Just to clarify, I do not think you are normally or generally illogical. I think you are intelligent, but one can not just always assume that you have not made a logical mistake, perhaps even unconsciously.

[Robert J. Kolker]

You are right but I am not advocating sorting through the civilan population to determine who is innocent and who is guilty.

In an aggressor nation every living soul is an asset of the tyrannical government. The men are workers or soldiers. The women are workers and or breeders the male children are future warriors and the female children are future breeders or workers. In short there are no innocent civilians. If it is not incorrect to bomb enemy planes, cannons, factories, airfields etc. then it is surely not wrong to bomb the other assets. Once an aggressor government has started down the warpath it has placed ALL of its subjects in mortal jeopardy. The nations defending against such aggression cannot afford to make fine distinctions between the "innocent" and the not-"innocent". This is especially true in an age of WMDs

We have historical precedent. In the second world war over 700,000 so-called civilians were killed in air raids. What in fact took place was the destruction of assets of the Germans and Japanese. The British bomber commander Sir Arthur Harris was particularly clearheaded in this matter. He said the German government sowed the wind and in due course they would reap the whirlwind. And so it was. Harris specialized on raids on so-called civilian housing areas to de-house workers, deprive them of sleep or kill them outright. The U.S. lost 40,000 airmen partly because of the moral impulse to distinguish between "civilian" targets and military targets. This was foolish and fatal. When fighting a tyranny ALL targets are military targets.

When fighting a tyrant aggressor the idea is to DESTROY him and god damn the collateral damage.

Bob Kolker

[Inspector]

We have historical precedent. In the second world war over 700,000 so-called civilians were killed in air raids. What in fact took place was the destruction of assets of the Germans and Japanese. The British bomber commander Sir Arthur Harris was particularly clearheaded in this matter. He said the German government sowed the wind and in due course they would reap the whirlwind. And so it was. Harris specialized on raids on so-called civilian housing areas to de-house workers, deprive them of sleep or kill them outright. The U.S. lost 40,000 airmen partly because of the moral impulse to distinguish between "civilian" targets and military targets. This was foolish and fatal. When fighting a tyranny ALL targets are military targets.

If it were known that such was the policy of the American military, who would dare threaten our nation? If civilians knew that they would likely die from our bombs, how many of them would continue to passively tolerate their nation's threatening stance toward America? As I said, dictatorships do not and cannot survive by force alone. Passive compliance is a required element.

[Inspector]

That is just one more way in which it is militarily required that we target civilians.

Sophia, have you read John Lewis' article on Hiroshima?

The bombings marked America's total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. To return an entire nation to morality, the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. The abstraction "war," the propaganda of their leaders, their twisted samurai "honor," their desire to die for the emperor--all of it had to be given concrete form. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. It showed the Japanese that "this"--point to burning buildings, screaming children scarred unmercifully, piles of corpses, the promise of starvation--"this is what you have done to others. Now it has come for you. Give it up, or die." This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy, and to beat the truth of the defeat into them.

(bold mine)

[Marc K.]

If yes to either, then is this idea of discrimination a moral principle or is war an amoral situation?

Can I assume from this answer that the idea of discrimination is not a moral principle? If so, then why are you advocating it?

How do I determine who is innocent and who is guilty on the field of battle?

I am still confused. How, exactly, should I take the existence of innocent individuals in an aggressive nation into consideration? Is there some action I must take? How about if before me and my crew take-off on a bombing run we take a minute to lament the fact that dictatorships are horrible places to live. That unfortunately the existence of this dictatorship has caused me to risk my life along with the lives of the innocent people living there. If I consider all this during a moment of silence on the ground, may I then bomb the crap out of their cities to stop their country's aggression?

Do the innocent have any moral responsibility not to put themselves in harm's way? Or any moral responsibility to identify themselves as innocent.

We've discussed this before. Someone is responsible for this kid.

Please answer the questions with regard to an innocent adult.