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

[~Sophia~]

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

The idea is based on moral principles but they no longer apply if the situation becomes amoral. In case when you have to chose between your own life and the life of another innocent - the principle of discrimination no longer apply.

I will answer the rest later today.

[Ifat Glassman]

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.

What do you mean by "innocent"? What is the standard that you use to determine who is innocent and who is not?

And, not in short, can you prove your argument that there are no innocent civilians (and explain the context of your statement)?

[Robert J. Kolker]

What do you mean by "innocent"? What is the standard that you use to determine who is innocent and who is not?

And, not in short, can you prove your argument that there are no innocent civilians (and explain the context of your statement)?

The population of the enemy tyranny are assets to the tyrants. They are as innocent as airplanes, cannon, warships and airfields. If they don't get out they have targets painted on them.

Bob Kolker

[Ifat Glassman]

The population of the enemy tyranny are assets to the tyrants. They are as innocent as airplanes, cannon, warships and airfields. If they don't get out they have targets painted on them.

Bob Kolker

You did not answer a single question that I have asked. Do you mind explaining to me what motivated you to reply to my post, if you did not answer it at all? (In a PM or whatever other way you'd like).

Maybe if I can understand what motivates a person to reply to someone without actually replying to something they said/asked, I would be more able to live in peace with it.

Thank you.

[Ifat Glassman]

These questions were directed at Sophia, but I want to provide my own answer.

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?

It is moral if the civilians are known to be complicit. For example: Palestinians holding a demonstration that supports terror. In this case they are declaring their intentions (which are known to be backed up by actions), and killing everyone there sounds like a great idea to me.

(Note: this has nothing to do with violation of the right for free speech: Since the people in this context are actively supporting terrorist activity).

The second case which can justify targeting civilians is when the price becomes too heavy to use another method of attack.

You may ask now, and justly so: "too heavy? by what standard?" or even "why should we pay any price at all?"

But since self-defense is not a moral open-ticket to do cause unlimited damage to innocent bystanders, I hold that there is a limit, and there is a price to be paid, and the gain is the existence of the right to life. (And this gain is what some people are missing when they accuse this position to be altruistic).

The question of determining the limits of justified force and proper retaliation is a moral one, not just a "practical" one.

As long as one has the option of choosing between several actions exists, and values are still pursu-able - one needs morality.

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

And I should avoid killing the innocent, right?

No (to the last question). killing and targeting are not the same. You should avoid targeting (unless other options of self-defense will not suffice). But if you target a military base, and on the way kill some innocents, it's OK.

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

At the field of battle - all are attackers. You should self-defend and shoot to kill no matter how innocent the one holding the gun is.

Even if men are forced to fight (by a threat of killing their families if they refuse or whatever) - this should not concern you. Once someone uses physical force against you, which is a kind of threat that can not be reduced in other ways (unlike tax-paying citizens under a tyranny), lethal self defense is your only option for survival.

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

An Innocent's responsibility, under these circumstances is to provide evidence that they are not enemies (to identify themselves as innocent), if they are given the chance to do so.

This responsibility comes from the fact that someone is attacking someone else by their name, so if they want to allow the defending side the means to make a fully informed decision, and since it might be reasonable, under the circumstances, to expect everyone on that place to be an enemy, to provide this information as clearly as possible.

Let us not forget, that it is every man's responsibility to avoid initiating force against someone who did not first did the same.

In cases where it is reasonable to assume (or when it is known) that certain citizens of an enemy country are not complicit, it is not justified to kill them.

The more heavy responsibility lies with the one who uses force, and not with the one defending.

Both sides are responsible to provide one another the means of reaching a well-informed decision when in conflict or doubt about what is true. You cannot expect a man to act rationally while holding out information that enables him to make reality-based decisions, and yet while he has evidence suggesting something other than the truth.

More about the citizen's responsibility: They are responsible, (while taking under account a reasonable hierarchy of values), to prevent having their resources used against someone else.

But are they responsibly to not be in harm's way? It depends where the "harm" is, and it depends on the options available to them. To take it to the extreme: if A decides to nuke B in several locations, the responsibility for the deaths of innocents does not lie with them for not evacuating. They are responsible to evacuate themselves from locations that are used to attack. (For example, in second Lebanon war, I think Israel had perfect justification to bomb those villages which were used as hiding places for rocket launchers). In this case because it is reasonable and justified that there would be a retaliation against the source of immediate attacks. Since A has the right for self-defense, and this self-defense means the right to use force against the military base, regardless of accidentally killing those around, then the responsibility for evacuation (assuming it is in their power to evacuate) lies with the innocents (and not with the attacker).

[~Sophia~]

I am still confused. How, exactly, should I take the existence of innocent individuals in an aggressive nation into consideration?

I don't think it is unclear what I ment. One should recognize a moral responsibility to try to limit collateral damage when possible (when not at the expense of proper self defence) while acting in self defence (both when it comes to defending yourself or a whole nation).

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

Please answer the questions with regard to an innocent adult.

In terms of using nuclear weapons and them not being able to leave the geographical area freely - not sure what they could do to either identify themselves as innocent or to avoid being harmed. I would have run for the border and probably died there.

Edited June 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Olex]

I would like to bridge the following two views, since the confusion is sure to occur here from both sides.

Ifatart was asking: (Sophia is likely to ask from the same point of view as well.)

What do you mean by "innocent"? What is the standard that you use to determine who is innocent and who is not?

And, not in short, can you prove your argument that there are no innocent civilians (and explain the context of your statement)?

which was answered with:

The population of the enemy tyranny are assets to the tyrants. They are as innocent as airplanes, cannon, warships and airfields. If they don't get out they have targets painted on them.

Note, that Ifatart questions aren't directly answered, and I think I know why Robert may see his answer as obvious enough, so that he didn't address those questions directly after showing his reply.

My own interpretation here of Robert's post is that "innocent" means "not involved in any direct or direct way with the tyrants." An example of "direct way" would be a solider of a tyrant's army, while indirect is simply being an asset of a tyrant that tyrant may use at any moment (as a simple worker, as a scientist, as any kind of producer from who taxes are being collected, etc.). Thus, nobody under a tyrant rule is "innocent" since he can be used by a tyrant in some way.

So, "innocent" in indirect case isn't meant in the usual way it is used. Here it is used passively: a person may not even do anything to help a tyrant, but the fact that he can be used as an asset makes him a threat, and thus a valid target.

So, in this view, an attack is not about figuring out who meant to hurt or not, but it is about figuring out who is a threat. If person A is a threat, then it's valid to target him. And it's not a problem to deal collateral damage either.

If he is innocent (did not nothing by his own choice to be a threat), but yet he is a threat (as being part of a enemy country), then he is a valid target in the time of war, since removing that person removes the threat he poses.

P.S. Now, going around and killing individuals within enemy country just based on this logic is still morally bad, but it is bad, only because it does follow the point of waging a war, which is to remove the threat as quickly as possible. Wasting time to "hunt" would be a wrong way to win the war (assuming this "hunting" does nothing to win the war).

I think the reason here that "innocents" (in usual sense) aren't a problem is that they are a valid source for tyrants to use against the defending country, so a defending country has a right to destroy this threat. A tyrant would be responsible for death of "innocents," so there isn't a moral problem here for the defender.

The point that has been made in this thread is that a defender is morally responsible to prevent killing too many "innocents." So far, however, I don't see how "too many" would be measured. The only proposed judgment is "if you can avoid killing an innocent without a threat to you, then you are morally responsible to do so."

However, this wasn't addressed well enough. How is one supposed to figure out if an action leaves one with no or lesser threat?

In some cases, it is simple, when a tyrant is brought down and the enemy has been defeated, doing more collateral damage would be immoral, because the threat is already removed, and thus "innocents" are no longer a threat to the defending country.

In most other cases, when it isn't even clear yet if an action will lead to victory right away, how is one supposed to judge the amount of threat? Obviously, since the threat of a tyrant is still there, you are still under a threat, and "innocents" are still a resource for a tyrant to use against us.

Thus, if you perform a lesser attack (the power of which you have reduced due to consideration for "innocents") you have dealt less damage to the tyrant, which means the tyrant can do more damage to you than in a case of larger attack. Thus, this leads to a greater danger to the defending country. (By "larger" attack I mean an attack that causes more damage to the tyrant's ability to attack the defending country.) Thus, struggling to avoid doing "extra" collateral damage just means that one gives the tyrant more chances to survive and reply back with more damage.

So, yes, those innocent have individual rights, of course, but the fact that they are now being used as a resource for a tyrant to attack another country, gives the defending country a moral right to retaliate with whatever force is needed to bring the tyrant down regardless of the collateral damage.

[Robert J. Kolker]

[quote name='Olex' date='Jun 9 2007, 06:39 PM' post='149458'

So, yes, those innocent have individual rights, of course, but the fact that they are now being used as a resource for a tyrant to attack another country, gives the defending country a moral right to retaliate with whatever force is needed to bring the tyrant down regardless of the collateral damage.

Arrrghhh! Smart as paint ye arrre! You got it right in the V-ring. Whatever it takes to defend, you do.

Bob Kolker

[~Sophia~]

Great post, Olex. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.

a person may not even do anything to help a tyrant, but the fact that he can be used as an asset makes him a threat, and thus a valid target.

If a person does not do anything to help a tyrant and in fact ideologically opposes the tyrant then on what grounds is this person not-innocent? If guilty - of what exactly?

I think the reason here that "innocents" (in usual sense) aren't a problem is that they are a valid source for tyrants to use against the defending country, so a defending country has a right to destroy this threat.

There are children, not-working mothers, students, ect. In what way are they a military threat?

A tyrant would be responsible for death of "innocents," so there isn't a moral problem here for the defender.

I do think this is true but to a point, only when it comes to the collataral damage which was unavoidable for proper self defence.

The only proposed judgment is "if you can avoid killing an innocent without a threat to you, then you are morally responsible to do so."

Yes that is my claim.

However, this wasn't addressed well enough. How is one supposed to figure out if an action leaves one with no or lesser threat?

It depends on your specific military objective, which can be small or on a much bigger scale. Let's think big. You want to bring your enemy to surrender - do you have to wipe an entire population out? or is considerable damage (but not total population wipe) enough to achieve the same goal?

In most other cases, when it isn't even clear yet if an action will lead to victory right away, how is one supposed to judge the amount of threat?

Do you mean that one can not objectively judge the level of threat one is facing?

Thus, if you perform a lesser attack (the power of which you have reduced due to consideration for "innocents") you have dealt less damage to the tyrant, which means the tyrant can do more damage to you than in a case of larger attack.

This may not always be the case. The tyrant may loose his will to fight with less than nuclear force.

Perhaps this is not what you ment but I don't buy the "you either nuke them or you doomed" argument.

[aequalsa]

Perhaps this is not what you ment but I don't buy the "you either nuke them or you doomed" argument.

Do you mean by that that you can not conceive of any circumstance where a nuclear response would be necessary?

[~Sophia~]

Do you mean by that that you can not conceive of any circumstance where a nuclear response would be necessary?

No. A situation like that can happen.

[Olex]

If a person does not do anything to help a tyrant and in fact ideologically opposes the tyrant then on what grounds is this person not-innocent? If guilty - of what exactly?

They are innocents, of course. My points weren't about proving that there are no innocents in a war, but that that a proper defense in a time of war is not limited by first checking that no "extra" innocents are hurt in the process of self-defense.

There are children, not-working mothers, students, ect. In what way are they a military threat?

They aren't a direct military threat, of course. But they can be used to support military via production, like working in a factory to produce weapons and supplies.

The argument here is that they can serve as a resource even if they aren't right now. They are essentially prisoners of the tyranny. And any day they can be put to whatever work they can do for the tyrant.

It depends on your specific military objective, which can be small or on a much bigger scale. Let's think big. You want to bring your enemy to surrender - do you have to wipe an entire population out? or is considerable damage (but not total population wipe) enough to achieve the same goal?

In many cases, the latter would be enough. This is a matter of context, of course. Whichever is necessary for the defense must be done. Although, it would have to be quite something unusual to required entire annihilation.

Do you mean that one can not objectively judge the level of threat one is facing?

No, I don't mean objectively. I meant that your requirement is very hard to judge in many cases. "No more than necessary" means that a defender has to find all the possible options to counter the attack, and find the one that deals the least amount of damage. Is this correct? (It follows from my understanding of your position.)

Because if there was a way to resolve the problem with less collateral damage, and yet the defender didn't find it, does this constitute a moral error? It seems like it would, since he did more than necessary.

I suppose that you will probably add that this "necessary" requirement isn't based strictly on the actual requirements in reality as judged by the best mind given enough time to make the best judgment, but instead it is based on the individual best decision in whatever time he had to come up with a decision without giving the attacker time to strike again. (Correct?)

If so, then let's imagine a defender coming up with 2-3 ways to completely take the tyrant down. Then according to your requirements, he must choose the one that deals less damage to their country, right?

These solutions can't be the same, of course. One difference between them is how much damage each does. Now I know from your previous posts that if solution A costs considerably higher in terms your own countrymen than solution B, then solution B should be chosen even if B causes more collateral damage.

What if a difference is very small in terms of countrymen? Let's say something around a single human loss, while the difference between A and B in terms of "innocent damage" is very big. Would you still say solution B should be chosen? I.e. what should be a higher value for the defender: a single countrymen or many innocent lives of an attacking country?

What about other considerations? What if solution A is very expensive in terms of money or some similar resources, while B isn't (and B "costs" more innocent lives). Should solution B be chosen? Or is that an immoral choice here?

Basically, how much trouble would it have to be for the defender to go for the solution that does less collateral damage? From your previous posts, you've indicated the "if you can avoid" requirement as well as some indication that not all considerations can be ignored while "avoiding". So, I'm asking for more details. What is the maximum price a defender should pay before you can say that he can't anymore avoid a harsher action?

Lives of a defending country are an obvious answer, but what about things like material cost of war and even psychological effects on other future potential tyrants? (This is another sideline - what about preventing future damage by more decisive damage?)

This may not always be the case. The tyrant may loose his will to fight with less than nuclear force. ... Perhaps this is not what you meant but I don't buy the "you either nuke them or you doomed" argument.

No, this isn't what I meant. I don't know exactly what it takes to drop a nuke, and how much risk is involved in, for example, the enemy taking down the plane with a bomb, and yet be able to salvage the bomb and then use it against us.

Launching a "simple" long range tactical nuclear missile sounds like a much easier solution ("better" would depend on a context) if it targets some ideological center or a leader of the enemy. It is also more mobile and more precise, and puts less men at risk during the operation (while nuke would take the main plane, support fleet, and suppression fire at the enemy ground guns).

EDIT: spelling and minor clarifications

Edited June 10, 2007 by Olex

[~Sophia~]

I have been re-reading known to me Oist material on the topic and found this statement by Graig Biddle:

Finally, I do not think it is necessary or proper in today's context, as it was in that of WWII, to target the general population of enemy states. Thanks to modern technology, we now have the ability to be more selective, and—so long as doing so does not place American civilians or soldiers in further danger—we should take advantage of that ability. Targeting the general population of an enemy state is moral if doing so is necessary to put a swift end to the aggression, but I do not think it is necessary today. Nor do I think it would work as it did in WWII. In today's context, given the nature of the enemy, we need specifically to target, among other things, the intellectual leaders of the Islamist movement.

I don't think that my position is far from the above.

[Olex]

Yes, I have read this quote before making my posts to explore Objectivist views on this. The problem with this quote is that it doesn't explain directly how certain considerations should be taken. It does seem to imply it, though.

It does say that "targeting the general population of an enemy state is moral if doing so is necessary to put a swift end to the aggression."

So, this seems to imply that the only consideration to keep in mind is if it is necessary to target the general population. Does this mean a defender is morally required to use a higher priced (in terms of money) solution even if much cheaper solution is present (but one that will cost enemy country more lives)?

This would have to be coming from the principle that human lives are of value and that one is morally required not to end them without a just cause, such as forced self-defense with no other better solution.

I can see where myself agreeing on spending slightly more money on a solution that kills less people in an enemy state.

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

Here is a question to everybody in general: if two solution differ by only 100$ (American dollars) would you pick a solution that that is the least expensive or the one that saves more lives in enemy state (but cost you 100$ more bucks)?

(100$ is to be taken on a government scale where 100$ is almost nothing.)

What if the difference is 1million? 1billion (which a country can pay but only as a big cut to its economy)? Would your answer change?

EDIT: minor clarifications

Edited June 11, 2007 by Olex

[Ifat Glassman]

So, this seems to imply that the only consideration to keep in mind is if it is necessary to target the general population. Does this mean a defender is morally required to use a higher priced (in terms of money) solution even if much cheaper solution is present (but one that will cost enemy country more lives)?

This would have to be coming from the principle that human lives are of value and that one is morally required not to end them without a just cause, such as forced self-defense with no other better solution.

I think it comes not from the fact that human lives are a value, but simply from the principle of individual rights. If there are people who did not use physical force against you, you have moral responsibility to respect their rights. It doesn't matter if you are from the same country or not: a moral government should only defend it's citizens in a moral way. Paying more to defend the concept of individual rights is not just a luxury that someone is having at the expense of it's citizen's money - it is their proper way to do their job.

Government is not paid to defend it's citizens no matter what and how. As an example, if a citizen kills on the basis of racism a bunch of tourists, or kills some citizens of another country, his government has a responsibility to use tax-payer's money to punish and stop him. A government is not committed to the safety of it's citizens no matter how - it is committed to protecting it's citizens while bearing in mind the principle of individual rights (of all men, not just the one's paying taxes).

Flowing from this - a government/military have to decide on tactics which are not just good self-defense, but also minimizes loss of innocent lives. Not just as a luxury of spending an extra $100, but as a principle integrated into their military strategy.

Of course there is the question of hierarchy of values or priorities that the government has to work with. Proper self-defense is more important than sparing innocent lives. If a government has to choose between the life of a soldier, and lives of an innocent civilian, then there is no question that it should chose the soldier's life.

I agree that the actual execution of what I just said is not entirely clear and formulated. Will devote more time for it later.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Flowing from this - a government/military have to decide on tactics which are not just good self-defense, but also minimizes loss of innocent lives. Not just as a luxury of spending an extra $100, but as a principle integrated into their military strategy.

Curtiss LeMay and Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris would have disagreed with you. Generals Grant, Sherman and Patton would have disagreed with you. I am grateful that you are not in charge of our National Defense. If someone with your attitude were, the Enemy would place children on the roofs of all his buildings. Or tie infants to the front of their tanks.

When an enemy makes war on us the idea is to crush him and destroy him. And God Damn the collateral damage!

Learn from history: Read this:

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/she...rn-atlanta.html

Bob Kolker

General: Conan, what is good!

Conan the Barbarian: Closing on the enemy, driving him before us and crushing him. And hearing the lamentations of his women.

General: That is good, Conan.

Sir Arhtur "Bomber" Harris: The Germans have sown the wind, and in due course they will reap the whirlwind.

General Patton: The idea is not to die for your country. The idea is to make the enemy son of a bitch die for his.

[KendallJ]

I have been re-reading known to me Oist material on the topic and found this statement by Graig Biddle:

I don't think that my position is far from the above.

Hi Sophia,

Apologies for the long absence. I've been out of the country and not much time to respond. I see the conversation has progressed significantly.

My question for you is that if you think the Biddle position and yours are close, how do you think the Biddle position and mine are far away? Given that Mr. Biddle is editor of the journal that has published most of the recent articles taking a very strong against the moral bearing of the concept of "discrimination"?

[~Sophia~]

Apologies for the long absence. I've been out of the country and not much time to respond. I see the conversation has progressed significantly.

Hope you had a good trip!

My question for you is that if you think the Biddle position and yours are close, how do you think the Biddle position and mine are far away? Given that Mr. Biddle is editor of the journal that has published most of the recent articles taking a very strong against the moral bearing of the concept of "discrimination"?

I don't agree with the concept of discrimination when mixed with altruism either. Discrimination can not happen at the expense of proper self defence. Altruists use this principle to claim that targetting civilian population is never moral.

I agree with this statement in particular:

Targeting the general population of an enemy state is moral if doing so is necessary to put a swift end to the aggression, but I do not think it is necessary today.

It is moral if necessary.

and then

Thanks to modern technology, we now have the ability to be more selective, and—so long as doing so does not place American civilians or soldiers in further danger—we should take advantage of that ability.

I agree with this. We should take advantage of the ability to be more selective if we can and if it does not place Americans in further danger.

I think, Mr. Biddle, similarly to my position (and I have not read his statement before yesterday) has removed the component of altruism from the concept of discrimination without rejecting the concept of discrimination all together. (not throwing away the baby with the bath water).

[Inspector]

It is moral if necessary.

Necessary by what standard? Militarily necessary? If so then how is that different than what I've been saying?

[KendallJ]

Hope you had a good trip!

It was, thanks! I might post on some of the things I saw later.

It is moral if necessary.

So what is it that determines the necessity? How does one go about that analysis?

[Olex]

If a government has to choose between the life of a soldier, and lives of an innocent civilian, then there is no question that it should chose the soldier's life.

Can you clarify this? Does "choose the soldier's life" mean that a soldier should live or that he should die for their citizens?

[KendallJ]

I think, Mr. Biddle, similarly to my position (and I have not read his statement before yesterday) has removed the component of altruism from the concept of discrimination without rejecting the concept of discrimination all together. (not throwing away the baby with the bath water).

I would agree with you, if you can demonstrate to me how the concept of discrimination factors into his analysis of what is necessary.

The fact that "discrimination" occurs, de facto, given a particular decision does not at all mean that the person subscribes to the concept or finds it relevant. I do not see where Mr. Biddle claims we have a moral obligation to discriminate.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Can you clarify this? Does "choose the soldier's life" mean that a soldier should live or that he should die for their citizens?

I think it goes like this: Better our soldier lives than an enemy child live if a choice must be made.

If so, I fully concur. Enemy lives have no standing in a real war. They are expendable.

Bob Kolker

[Marc K.]

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

To me this speaks volumes about your position.

In the case where my self defense requires that I take an innocent life, my actions, at best, can only be described as "amoral".

This contradicts the whole idea that my life is the goal of my moral actions.

So dropping two atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII and save hundreds of thousands of American lives was not a moral act?

Another symptom of this disease is the assertion that there are conflicts between the rights of men. You have answered that this conflict only arises when force is involved. Which means of course that you do accept that someone has the right to live in a dictatorship or the right to be enslaved. Do you think that tyrants can legitimately claim that the people who choose not to escape their rule do so by right?

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

EDIT: Could you also provide a citation of your most recent Craig Biddle quote.

Edited June 11, 2007 by Marc K.

[~Sophia~]

So what is it that determines the necessity? How does one go about that analysis?

If more selective methods were not available or if those methods came at the expense of American lives I would not have been advocating discrimination. The situation also changes when the agressor has nuclear weapons.

Necessity to me is determined by the question: Do you need to use it to properly defend yourself? If the answer is: "Yes, in the current situation, proper self defence requires it." - then the principle of discrimination becomes irrelevant.

It is only relevant when there is a choice which does not come at the expense of proper self defense and American lives.

Edited June 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~