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

[KendallJ]

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.

So who has the proper knowledge and context to answer the question of "proper defense"? What does that knowledge and context consist of?

[~Sophia~]

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

This statement was part of the reply to a question posted by Dan about targetting non-combatants in War (TOS, October 07, 2006)

Edited June 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[dan_edge]

Here's a link to the quote Sophia referenced.

--Dan Edge

[~Sophia~]

So who has the proper knowledge and context to answer the question of "proper defense"?

As with any issue, any one who is aware of all of the relevant facts and correctly understands the issues/situation, an expert driven by objectivity.

What does that knowledge and context consist of?

Everything which is relevant. I can't answer this more specifically in the abstract. By "proper" I mean effective in achieving the goal of self defence.

Here's a link to the quote Sophia referenced.

--Dan Edge

Thanks, Dan. I have the link in my fav folder at home but not at work.

Edited June 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[KendallJ]

By "proper" I mean effective in achieving the goal of self defence.

OK, so know the kicker.

How is this line of thought you have developed any different from what I proposed to you as the proper method of analysis?

You originally chided me by saying that my analysis was not moral, and that "ends to not justify the means." Yet, here we have you stating that the "effectiveness" of a particular tactic to a partiuclar end, can render the moral consideration of killing an innocent "irrelevant". What's different, exactly, from what I originally suggested to you as the proper method of analyzing this?

Maybe we have to talk about what you mean by effectiveness "in acheiving the goal of self defense"?

[Ifat Glassman]

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.

Right, Bob is correct. The reason is that the government's role is to defend the rights of it's citizens, not to defend the rights of other people. But it is still "morally obligated" to respect individual rights of all men (not to defend them, just to not violate them).

Note: I'm not going to have time to participate in the thread in the near future, So if you ask me something it will probably take a while before I answer.

(You can still ask general questions about points I made and discuss it with others, I'm fine with that of course)

[~Sophia~]

How is this line of thought you have developed any different from what I proposed to you as the proper method of analysis?

Of course that effectiveness is a factor involved when one is trying to determine what is proper.

I will highlight this statement again by Mr. Biddle:

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.

(bold mine)

I think the difference between us lies in what each of us thinks is the motivation/reason behind that should. I say that it has a moral component (as explained in this thread) and I think you consider it purely strategical. Am I right?

[Marc K.]

This statement was part of the reply to a question posted by Dan about targetting non-combatants in War (TOS, October 07, 2006)

Sorry, Dan's link isn't working and I don't see any letter written by Craig Biddle in the Fall 2006 issue. Did I just miss it? Are you sure it is by Craig Biddle?

[~Sophia~]

Sorry, Dan's link isn't working and I don't see any letter written by Craig Biddle in the Fall 2006 issue. Did I just miss it? Are you sure it is by Craig Biddle?

Yes, I am sure.. I will provide you with the link tonight.

[~Sophia~]

Yes, I am sure.. I will provide you with the link tonight.

TOS link

[~Sophia~]

Yet, here we have you stating that the "effectiveness" of a particular tactic to a partiuclar end, can render the moral consideration of killing an innocent "irrelevant".

It is not the effectiveness which renders the moral consideration irrelevant - it is the fact that it is absolutely necessary; it is the fact that without this high level of force proper self defence is not possible. Using less would be a sacrifice.

[KendallJ]

It is not the effectiveness which renders the moral consideration irrelevant - it is the fact that it is absolutely necessary; it is the fact that without this high level of force proper self defence is not possible. Using less would be a sacrifice.

I feel like you're getting slippery on my here Sophia. The "absolute necessity" of it cannot be evaluted without understanding the effectiveness, correct? That is, the effectivenss in all aspects, which must include not only the attainment of a particular military objective, but also the conservation of men and materials, and any other strategic resources that would be necessary for bringing the war to an end swiftly?

My assertion is that using more force than necessary is also a sacrifice (of resources), and hence immoral, without having to consider rights violations. What is added that is unique that rights violations brings in? What situation would we have that I would advocate the use of force, and you would choose another course based upon these different analyses?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to characterize "effectiveness" to mean any level of force above and beyond that which is necessary to acheive the objective, which is a disintegrated view of fighting warfare.

I think your method is epistemologically sloppy only in that discrimination as a concept is a package deal. But the term lumps together any killing of innocents, that is, both the justified killing of such and the unjustified killing of such, and then leaves it to you to pull out the specific qualification. But in fact it is more useful for blurring the distinction.

The analysis is still a moral one, (i.e. that which is ineffective - i.e. sacrificial - in the complete sense of the word is immoral) and is more concisely and completely taken up the the analysis of "effectiveness" in a fully integrated context. It addresses all of your concerns (except your strawmen of course) this way, without inserting a package deal which others will take adavantage of.

How do you know that Biddle's should isn't actually determined by my analysis and not yours? The circumstantial evidence: a. that he specifically addressses the sacrifice of men and materiale, and b. that he edits the journal that specifically published the article rejecting discrimination as a concept, as such, would seem to favor an explanation different than yours.

Edited June 12, 2007 by KendallJ

[~Sophia~]

How do you know that Biddle's should isn't actually determined by my analysis and not yours?

I don't. I have to examine his writings further as I have only found this statment recently. I was only pointing to the fact that he also said "we should".

(I will respond to the rest tomorrow).

[KendallJ]

By the way, Sophia, I admit that my view has shifted somewhat from the origin of the thread, thanks to your continued challenge. Not my rejection of discrimination, per se, but the basis underlying it. I'm not totally convinced that rights considerations aren't a factor, but I am very leary of allowing any package deals to enter my thinking because ultimately, I'll have accepted my demise if I do.

[~Sophia~]

By the way, Sophia, I admit that my view has shifted somewhat from the origin of the thread, thanks to your continued challenge. Not my rejection of discrimination, per se, but the basis underlying it. I'm not totally convinced that rights considerations aren't a factor, but I am very leary of allowing any package deals to enter my thinking because ultimately, I'll have accepted my demise if I do.

We are both on the search for what IS.

[~Sophia~]

I feel like you're getting slippery on my here Sophia. The "absolute necessity" of it cannot be evaluted without understanding the effectiveness, correct?

Well a more destructive method can be effective but may not be necessary.

My assertion is that using more force than necessary is also a sacrifice (of resources), and hence immoral, without having to consider rights violations.

Yes, it can be but does not need to be. Technology is making that possible. Biological weapons, for example, are characterized by low cost, ease of access, and delivery. Per kilogram of weapon, the potential lives lost approach those of nuclear weapons.

What is added that is unique that rights violations brings in?

The answer is tied to my previous responses above.

What situation would we have that I would advocate the use of force, and you would choose another course based upon these different analyses?

By the time altruists decide to use nuclear weapons - I think the threat is going to be so high that we both will be in agreement.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to characterize "effectiveness" to mean any level of force above and beyond that which is necessary to acheive the objective, which is a disintegrated view of fighting warfare.

No, by effectiveness I mean: producing a desired effect.

I think your method is epistemologically sloppy only in that discrimination as a concept is a package deal. But the term lumps together any killing of innocents, that is, both the justified killing of such and the unjustified killing of such, and then leaves it to you to pull out the specific qualification. But in fact it is more useful for blurring the distinction.

The fact that altruists are doing so (and they are doing it with many, many concepts) does not mean that it is correct to lump those together. It clearly is not.

(I will not have time to post much in the next few days).

Edited June 13, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[midniterequiem]

1) Use of Nuclear Force will upset China, Russia, the rest of the world; I don't care how powerful you think we are, we can't take on the entire world.

2) Use of Nuclear Force will upset the American People (majority)

3) Radiation will spread with the winds

4) Nukes kill indiscriminantly and that would make us no better than terrorists (terrorists attack civilian targets afterall)

5) We owe it to the people who died on 9/11 to cherish their memories and protect ALL people from stupid terrorists

And some events tied to the those five

6) It will NOT make the US more safe because then the entire world will be wanting our downfall.

7) It will NOT make the US more safe because its own population will probably revolt or at least protest maniacally.

8) Nuclear Wars are no fun

9) To use Nuclear Weapons, you'd have to bypass much of our entire Congressional system and give the Commander-in-Cheif insane power, which is exactly what the US does NOT need because that's what our founding fathers fought against. Unless

[Inspector]

midniterequiem,

Did you read this thread before posting?

[DarkWaters]

There is a really good reminder on CNN.com of the disenchantment of the Iranian people with President Ahmadinejad. There does seem to be a palpable pro-Western movement in Iran. If a military campaign is launched against Iran, it will probably be in our self-interest to try to avoid inadvertently trampling this resistance.

Edited July 17, 2007 by DarkWaters

[volco]

I agree that Iran is the only national face of jihad, but islam, much like communism, wants to create a non national world, a world caliphate. Iran is as much a threat as Saudi Arabia or Hamburg for the strategic advantage they provide the highly distributed network of islamic terrorism.

To nuke Iran would not negatively affect the potential and current european-based terrorists who receive their check from riyad and attack America, on the contrary, it would provide them a moral saction to retaliate with nuclear weapons. It would also inflamate all the on-the-fence moslems

The Soviet Union served as model for thirdworldish communists to look up to and ultimately to look down to. We didn't beat the USSR in a war we just outevolved them. The same thing should happen to Islam, de jure in Iran and de facto in dozen more countries. Islamic terrorism is kinda like communist guerrilla without the national factor.

It was easier to beat the nazis because unlike communists and moslems, fascists are nationalists.

Jihad is the ungrateful barbarian child of decolonization. The luddite mystic and racist philosophy Jihad represents can still be fought, but like communism it will probably be digested. I don't wanna sound libertarian but the real struggle is domestic, inmunological, its faces being multiculturalism, political correctness, environmentalism and 9/11.

[Mammon]

1) Because Ron Paul said not too.

2) Because Ron Paul doesn't want too.

3) Because Ron Paul thinks its a bad idea.

4) Because CORPORATIONS will make money.

5) Because Ron Paul wouldn't vote for it.

Do I win the thread?!

[shaitan]

If we nuked Tehran, it would be radioactive and become useless land.

If we bomb it conventionally, there is no radiation, we still kill the bad guys, and the good guys can build shit there .

[DavidOdden]

If we nuked Tehran, it would be radioactive and become useless land.

If we bomb it conventionally, there is no radiation, we still kill the bad guys, and the good guys can build shit there .

It would be better to build good stuff there and not shit. Besides, "Nuke Tehran" is a bit of a metaphor. It would be more important to nuke Qom and Masshad as religious centers, which are the cause of Iran's current problem. Anyhow, Nagasaki has a population of about a half million and Hiroshima has over a million, so nukes don't actually render land permanently useless.

[TheEgoist]

4) Because CORPORATIONS will make money.

You see the corporations, they sit up in their corporation buildings and they act all corporationey...And make money.

[Rounin]

1) Because it'd be a massive initiation of violent force against a large number of innocent people, which would be an immoral act of an order of magnitude almost unheard of.

2) Because it'd legitimise the initiation of violence against innocents by other nations, including against US citizens.

3) Because it'd create an(other) enormous backlash against the US, as did the war on Iraq.

3) Because it isn't necessary to protect the US or its allies.

5) Because it'd increase the chance of nuclear war.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Rounin