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

[DavidOdden]

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.

The initiation of force actually comes from the Iranian government; this would be retaliatory force.

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

I don't see how: is your position that we must be pacificists for fear of "legitimizing" the proper use of force?

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

Perhaps it would, but fear of criticism is not a legitimate reason to commit suicide.

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

That's the one question of substance, as far as I can see. Today, I would agree, but things in Iran are changeable. It is an option that should be exercised, when it becomes necessary.

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

No, it would be a (one-sided) nuclear war.

[Rounin]

The initiation of force actually comes from the Iranian government; this would be retaliatory force.

Retaliatory force against the Iranian government, and initiation of force against the thousands of innocents killed just because of the choice of a nuclear bomb as the mode of attack.

It's very convenient to hold all Iranians collectively responsible for the actions of their government, but this is collectivist reasoning. If some innocent Iranians harmed by the attack were to decide to strike back at the US, on what basis would you condemn them?

I don't see how: is your position that we must be pacificists for fear of "legitimizing" the proper use of force?

When you legitimise using a type of force that harms a high number of innocents, you're legitimising more than the proper use of force.

[aequalsa]

Retaliatory force against the Iranian government, and initiation of force against the thousands of innocents killed just because of the choice of a nuclear bomb as the mode of attack.

It's very convenient to hold all Iranians collectively responsible for the actions of their government, but this is collectivist reasoning. If some innocent Iranians harmed by the attack were to decide to strike back at the US, on what basis would you condemn them?

I would condemn them as being short-sighted and ignorant at best and immoral at worst. If I were living under a regime which threatened another country in such a way that caused them to attack, then the correct place to direct my blame would be on my own government. They would be the ultimate cause of the harm done to me.

[DavidOdden]

Retaliatory force against the Iranian government, and initiation of force against the thousands of innocents killed just because of the choice of a nuclear bomb as the mode of attack.

You left out a verb, so I don't know what you mean. But we would not be initiating force, we would be retaliating. It is always unfortunate when innocent people are harmed in the course of defending oneself from an aggressor, but that can't force a nation into suicide.

It's very convenient to hold all Iranians collectively responsible for the actions of their government, but this is collectivist reasoning.

I don't hold all Iranian's collectively responsible for the actions of their government; their government bears the responsibility for the deaths of innocents.

If some innocent Iranians harmed by the attack were to decide to strike back at the US, on what basis would you condemn them?

They have no right to attack the US, since we did not initiate force, in fact they initated force against us. It's like the situation where you defend yourself against a gangster, and a gang member attacks you because you dealt out justice. Of course they would deserve condemnation (or, really, obliteration).

When you legitimise using a type of force that harms a high number of innocents, you're legitimising more than the proper use of force.

No, that is false. The propriety of the use of force is not a statistical matter, it's a matter of principle.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

1) The fallout might give the environmentalists a hissy fit.

2) Pretty green glass would become a glut on the marketplace, throwing dozens of green glass makers out of work.

3) A lot of terrorists would be unemployed and go on welfare.

4) There'd be less work for Farsi interpreters.

5) Uhh.... I cannot thing of a fifth reason.

[FeatherFall]

It's very convenient to hold all Iranians collectively responsible for the actions of their government, but this is collectivist reasoning.

Collectivism is the notion that aggregates of people are the standard of value. Collective punishment is an entirely different issue (punishing a group of people due to the actions of a smaller set within that group). I don't think anyone holds all Iranians responsible for the regime. At least, they shouldn't. Furthermore, tactics that involve civilian casualties are not necessarily examples of collective punishment.

For the purpose of wartime planning, civilians come in two varieties; Material supporters of the regime and genuine innocents.

If civilians materially support a regime through otherwise peaceful economic activity, those civilians are components of any threat posed by their regime. These types of civilians are legitimate targets, so targeting them is not collective punishment. Sadly, statist regimes always corrupt legal economic activity, which makes dilineating between the two kinds of civilians a practical impossibility.

Nobody is advocating the targeting of genuine innocents. But there is a point at which measures to ensure the safety of such innocents become problematic. When these types of civilians are within the kill zone of, say, a nuclear weapon, they become the moral responsibility of the aggressor, not of the retaliator.

Edit: Grammar, quote clipping

Edited July 14, 2008 by FeatherFall

[KevinDW78]

I don't hold all Iranian's collectively responsible for the actions of their government; their government bears the responsibility for the deaths of innocents.

Collective punishment is an entirely different issue (punishing a group of people due to the actions of a smaller set within that group).

I find this concept interesting (not that I necessarily disagree) Did Rand ever specifically address this somewhere?

[D'kian]

Nobody is advocating the targeting of genuine innocents. But there is a point at which measures to ensure the safety of such innocents become problematic. When these types of civilians are within the kill zone of, say, a nuclear weapon, they become the moral responsibility of the aggressor, not of the retaliator.

Absolutely.

I will add that if you become too concerned about not killing non-combatants, you run the risk of becoming paralyzed. All the enemy has to do is place "human shields" inside or even nearby likely targets, or even just announce that he has done so. Eventually you need to choose whther to risk killing a few civilians or giving up.

The overriding reason no to nuke Tehran is that it's not necessary. You don't implode a building because it has roaches, you kill the bugs instead. In Iran's case we should bomb their known and suspected nuclear facilities, armed forces facilities, command and control centers, and we should also try to target the leadership. These targets are too dispersed to be dealt with one nuke. Multiple nukes are uncalled for.

If we wait, if we allow the mad mullahs to deploy a nuclear arsenal, though, we may have to resort to a reataliatory nuclear strike on Iran, and that implies a catastrophe for us.

[Marty McFly]

1- Because everything today is on "looks" for example: poor people who suffer are more -allowed- to do crime than rich people.

therefore, the poor helpless palistinians using tractors and home made bombs, and poor cave men using airplanes to kill instead of high tech ammunition will be loved by everyone no matter how many civillians get killed.

so best thing to do is throw a bunch of glass bottles on them. we will look more helpless this way and it will put us in a better place universally.

2- because Iran might be a pretty place, so why destroy it just because of the crappy people living there?

3- Because nukes are expensive. why waste a nuke on Iran, when there might be other enemies with more high tech whepons we would need to fight? also, I doubt this government will ever allow us to make new nukes. how many do we have, anyway?

4- It might give the Muslims reason to fight hard and work hard on getting real nukes... that thought is scary.

5- because the way the world stands right now you cannot ignore what other countries think.

[fletch]

Marty, you're joking, right?

[brian0918]

4- It might give the Muslims reason to fight hard and work hard on getting real nukes... that thought is scary.

5- because the way the world stands right now you cannot ignore what other countries think.

I have to say that your last 2 points are particularly convincing. It is convenient to think of things in terms of "if they attack us, we attack them" but the world is not that simple. Over-bombardment of one group will put us at greater risk of enraging the world (or at least, the Middle East) and put our lives needlessly more at risk. Saying we should nuke anyone and everyone that poses a threat, regardless of the number of civilians that will be destroyed in the process, will only bring about more and greater agressors with larger weapons (ie, nukes of their own) and vendettas.

I think we should avoid civilian deaths as much as possible, within reason, and only go after the leaders and their weapons development. If they use human hostages, of course we should still go after them. And, of course, once we get rid of one set of bad leaders, the country will likely be replaced with another set of bad leaders; then we'll take them out as well if and when it becomes necessary to. This way the civil unrest is minimized and we don't see an army of people willing to strap bombs to their chests because their friends or family were killed.

[DavidOdden]

I have to say that your last 2 points are particularly convincing.

Would you generally agree that it is wisest to give in to terrorism and not resist the initiation of force with greater force?

[Marc K.]

This is a contentious issue.

I hope everyone now replying has read most of this thread, many of these questions have been addressed.

There are good references to Objectivist articles in Post #263 on pg.14 and a good link to other threads in Post #290 pg.15.

- The proper object of war is an end to aggression as quickly as possible with as little loss of defender's lives as possible.

- Wars are fought by nations.

- The citizens of a nation are responsible for the government they allow to exist and to act in their name.

If it will end the war more quickly it is not only acceptable to target civilians, it is a moral imperative.

I consider the dropping of an A-bomb on Hiroshima to be acceptable. And once the Japanese still didn't surrender, it was morally imperative that we drop another if we had it.

[brian0918]

Would you generally agree that it is wisest to give in to terrorism and not resist the initiation of force with greater force?

Is this sort of like the black/white "if you're not with us, you're against us" thought process? My main concern is only my own life and the lives of my friends/family and those I care about. With that in mind, I go through the following line of reasoning to my conclusion. If you have a problem with any of them, please let me know which and for what reasons.

1. Assume that the current Iranian leadership, their military, and their weapons development are the primary threat from the country.

2. Assume that we can destroy the current leadership, military, and weapons development, with well-placed, non-nuclear weapons.

3. Assume that dropping one nuke on Tehran will kill thousands or tens of thousands more civilians than dropping well-placed non-nuclear weapons.

4. Assume that a person is more likely to be motivated to action if a close friend or family member is killed, rather than just a community member who is a stranger.

4. Assume that almost any Iranian citizen would be angry at the United States if we killed someone they cared about.

5. Assume that some subset of such citizens would be willing to strap bombs to themselves and attack our citizens or military through means of their choosing (planes, trains, automobiles).

Do these seem reasonable?

1. Let's say we drop one or more nukes on Tehran, destroying the leadership, in additional to thousands or tens of thousands of civilians.

2. Each of those civilians had at least 1 person who cared about them, and as many 10.

3. Now, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have lost someone they care about.

4. Most of them will be mad at the country that destroyed them, rather than the country that they live in (another assumption).

5. Let's say that 1% of these individuals are willing to take their lives in some irrational attempt at revenge. That's hundreds to thousands of people who have suddenly been motivated to action.

6. Add to that the people that can be recruited by such individuals, in addition to any death-loving people in surrounding countries who will be pushed over the edge, and you could see thousands to tens of thousands willing to strap bombs to their chests.

7. All of these newly-motivated enemies will increase the risk of putting my life and the lives of my friends/family in danger, either directly (they bomb me or my family) or indirectly (their efforts lead to market unrest, leading to looting and other violence).

So, given that these things can be avoided, or minimized, by using smaller, well-placed weapons, then using these smaller weapons is simply a way to minimize the threat to my life. We get rid of the leadership and avoid motivating the civilians as much as possible.

Edited July 14, 2008 by brian0918

[Zip]

I won't get into the 5 reasons. It's all just a little silly anyway, but what I will say is that a Nuclear Weapon, and the use of such weapons is a tool of last resort.

If the US had no option. If it could not destroy the Iranian Nuclear facilities (which it could) If it could not obliterate the Iranian government (which it could) then Nuclear strikes on cities might be an option.

[eriatarka]

Would you generally agree that it is wisest to give in to terrorism and not resist the initiation of force with greater force?

It depends entirely on the context: the way the British government has dealt with the pIRA seems like it may end up with acceptable results, even though it looked like the government was capitulating at times (the release of prisoners under the Good Friday agreement still makes me very uncomfortable, but it seems to have 'worked' in terms of diffusing the conflict). Whereas Israel's policy of "one-upping" acts of Palestine violence looks short-signted and has probably worked out worse for them in the long run since the suicide bombings still show no signs of stopping. "Negotiating" with terrorists can be reasonable in situations where you have reasonable grounds to believe that negotiations will actually work, and where the terrorists do have some legitimate grievances (even if their methods are abhorrant). An overly violent response may often be a case of treating the symptoms rather than the cause, since youre doing nothing to correct the factors which created the breeding ground for terrorists in the first place (eg the British oppression of Irish Catholics over the last 300 years, or the evil of Russia's attempted genocide in Chechnya)

A partial cause of the current problems in the Middle East has been America's foreign policy over the last 50 years (particularly its relations with Saudi Arabia), and while this continues, terrorist activities are unlikely to decrease even if they are 'one-upped' in terms of violence. The exact same arguments youre using now were used by people 5 years ago to justify the Iraq war, and look how well that turned out.

I agree that Iran shouldnt be allowed be get nuclear weapons and supporting an Israeli airstrike on suspected weapons sites may be a good idea, but nuking Tehran is quite obviously not the answer ,anymore than firebombing Belfast would have been a reasonable response by the British.

Edited July 14, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

Is this sort of like the black/white "if you're not with us, you're against us" thought process?

No, I was wondering what exactly you meant. McFly's last two reasons are founded on the "don't rock the boat, always appease the enemy" principle, and I was wondering if you generally thought that if there are risks to self-defense that you should allow yourself to be killed or enslaved. In certain contexts this might be the correct approach, for example if you have been kidnapped by raving insane Shite extremist terrorists who are threatening to blow of your head if you don't read some text condemning Israel, then in the ordinary armed terrorist gand vs. hostage situation, you probably will not advance your cause if you say "Screw you". However, that doesn't realistically describe the current situation.

The pacifist approach is to declare any use of force to be an intrinsic evil, which leads to the rule that when threatened, you must be prepared to die. If taken seriously, McFly's suggestions are closely aligned with the pacifist rule of giving in to aggression. (I don't know if he is kidding; however, you seemed to take his last two statements seriously). Thus I don't know if you think that there is some point at which the US should defend itself from aggression, regardless of how it might upset Islamists.

I don't see that it's necessary to go through your rationalization in detail. The main facts that have to be focused on are these. If one nation threatens another, the aggressor must be stopped. The US has the capacity (perhaps not the moral spine) to actually stop aggressors (whereas I would say that East Timor and Chad do not). Lives are lost on all sides during a war, including the lives of innocents; it is the tactical responsibility of the military to reach the goal -- obliteration of the aggressor -- with minimal losses of our lives. We did not allow Japan or Germany to prevail during WWII out of fear of angering them. Now perhaps your justification for defending the US during WWII would be that Germany and Japan did not enjoy broad global support, so that the moral issue for you reduces to the question "what is popular?". For me, the issue is whether we are being attacked and must defend ourselves, even if defending our very existence is politically unpopular in the world.

[brian0918]

I don't see that it's necessary to go through your rationalization in detail. The main facts that have to be focused on are these. If one nation threatens another, the aggressor must be stopped. The US has the capacity (perhaps not the moral spine) to actually stop aggressors (whereas I would say that East Timor and Chad do not). Lives are lost on all sides during a war, including the lives of innocents; it is the tactical responsibility of the military to reach the goal -- obliteration of the aggressor -- with minimal losses of our lives. We did not allow Japan or Germany to prevail during WWII out of fear of angering them. Now perhaps your justification for defending the US during WWII would be that Germany and Japan did not enjoy broad global support, so that the moral issue for you reduces to the question "what is popular?". For me, the issue is whether we are being attacked and must defend ourselves, even if defending our very existence is politically unpopular in the world.

Again, your statements only hold true if you treat the situation as black and white. As my point-by-point post has shown (or at least tried to show), acting that way may put your life at greater risk. Isn't the whole purpose of this one's own self-interest?

Once again, I understand that if you pose the situation as "one nation versus another nation", "agressor versus defender", "attacking versus defending your very existence", then the nuclear resort is more viable. However I do not believe that the way you have posed the situation is realistic, for the reasons that I gave. For me, the generalities you are using seem like purposeful whitewashing of reality.

Whether or not you choose to address my post is up to you to decide. My only purpose is my own self-interest, so it is more important that, when framing a situation, you frame it as accurately as possible. I believe that the way you have framed it is less accurate than the way I have framed it, for the reasons that I have already stated.

Edited July 14, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

Again, your statements only hold true if you treat the situation as black and white.

Yes, it true that I am distinguishing carefully between true and false, good and evil, life or death. I'm glad you pointed out the nature of the problem -- the pacificists won't overtly embrace death but they certainly won't won't embrace life and what is necessary to keep if. Living death is an apt description of the pacifist position. I don't think it's in your self-interest to seek a compromise between life and death -- I think you should go uncompromisingly and non-contradictorily for your life and therefore the elimination of threats to your life.

I think the mistake that you're making is equating short-term results with "self interest". "Living", which is supposed to be your ultimate goal, does not mean a sequence of days describable as "managing not to die today". Existing under the constant threat of death is not living, and it is necessary, if man is to exist as man, that such threats be eliminated. This does, sometimes, mean killing the enemy, and unfortunately, good people may end up dying if bad people are to be awarded their just deserts. That does not mean that we should mill around like sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

[Publius]

Very well put, brian and eriatarka. The Iranian problem must be dealt with, and decisively so, but nuclear weapons shouldn't be an option at this point or probably ever. It seems highly irrational to resort to the maximum amount of force (nukes) unless it solves the problem without considerable blowback. I think such casual use of nukes greatly increases the likelihood that a United States city will be targeted for a portable nuclear device in the future. The Arabs know how to hold a grudge; the Shi'ites and Sunnis have been battling it out for over 1000 years now. The Crusades are still a sore subject.

Air strikes using conventional guided missiles could do the job of neutralizing Iran's nuclear facilities. Real tough economic sanctions (which we're only starting to use) could provide the incentive for them to give up the idea of nukes before such a strike is necessary. From a cultural point of view, the Iranian common people LOVE the West, especially the US. It would be foolish to not use this sentiment to our advantage. The Iranian government is not as stable as it appears from the outside.

[brian0918]

Yes, it true that I am distinguishing carefully between true and false, good and evil, life or death. I'm glad you pointed out the nature of the problem -- the pacificists won't overtly embrace death but they certainly won't won't embrace life and what is necessary to keep if. Living death is an apt description of the pacifist position. I don't think it's in your self-interest to seek a compromise between life and death -- I think you should go uncompromisingly and non-contradictorily for your life and therefore the elimination of threats to your life.

I think the mistake that you're making is equating short-term results with "self interest". "Living", which is supposed to be your ultimate goal, does not mean a sequence of days describable as "managing not to die today". Existing under the constant threat of death is not living, and it is necessary, if man is to exist as man, that such threats be eliminated. This does, sometimes, mean killing the enemy, and unfortunately, good people may end up dying if bad people are to be awarded their just deserts. That does not mean that we should mill around like sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

I understand your perspective, but believe that by being carelessly overdestructive, we will create new enemies out of those whose actions up to that point were primarily neutral. Those individuals will have to be dealt with, and in dealing with them, new enemies will be created, and so forth. Are you saying that that is a good thing, basically, because if we don't deal with them all now, we'll just have to deal with them at some future time? I don't think things are that simple. I believe that most of the public, if left alone, will also leave you alone. That is why I think we should only target the leaders.

Edited July 14, 2008 by brian0918

[FeatherFall]

@ Publius, Brian0918 and KevinDW78

Real tough economic sanctions (which we're only starting to use) could provide the incentive for them to give up the idea of nukes before such a strike is necessary.

Can you think of a successful example of sanctioning a country comparable to Iran? In other words, when has this ever worked?

I understand your perspective, but believe that by being carelessly overdestructive, we will create new enemies out of those whose actions up to that point were primarily neutral.

Are you thinking of any country in particular who would have a violent reaction? I'm damn sure France and Britain wouldn't, but maybe you are thinking more along the lines of Russia and Pakistan? I'd be interested to read your reasons for why they would stop thinking about their own self interest to avenge the deaths of some Persians. I tend to think such countries don't have the moral certainty or cojones to do anything but cry about US retaliation.

I find this concept interesting (not that I necessarily disagree) Did Rand ever specifically address this somewhere?

I don't know that she ever took the time to address it. Collective punishment is kind of like a judicial non sequitur, so it has had a bad reputation for a long time, and for good reason.

[DavidOdden]

I understand your perspective, but believe that by being carelessly overdestructive, we will create new enemies out of those whose actions up to that point were primarily neutral.

Am I then correct in concluding that if it were necessary to obliterate one or more cities in order to stop the aggression, and assuming retaliation by them, that you would oppose defending the US? I agree that we should not be carelessly overdestructive, but I even more strongly believe that we should not commit national suicide on the off chance that defending ourself will result in some hurt Islamist feelings and even terrorist attacks by the Shites.

[eriatarka]

Am I then correct in concluding that if it were necessary to obliterate one or more cities in order to stop the aggression, and assuming retaliation by them, that you would oppose defending the US? I agree that we should not be carelessly overdestructive, but I even more strongly believe that we should not commit national suicide on the off chance that defending ourself will result in some hurt Islamist feelings and even terrorist attacks by the Shites.

Youu keep weaving back-and-forwards between the real world and hypothetical situations. Are we talking about destroying cities in an abstract sense, or about nuking Tehran, the actual city in Iran, during the 21st century? There may be situations where levelling a city is justifiable (possibly Dresden and Hiroshima) but I dont see what relevance that has to Tehran. Theres no evidence at all that nuking Tehran would be useful for national security, or that not doing so would be 'suicide', but there is a lot of evidence to think that it would be a horrible, horrible idea in terms of the reaction it would create (not to mention the needless slaughter of thousands of people).

Edited July 14, 2008 by eriatarka

[D'kian]

Can you think of a successful example of sanctioning a country comparable to Iran? In other words, when has this ever worked?

The only case I can think of that comes close is South Africa. But that was a less irrational country, it had no regional or global designs, and it faced armed opposition within. None of which is true of Iran.