So you would advocate sending a large nuclear cloud over China and Russia doing untold damage to them simply because we feel threatened by North Korea? Our government’s job is to protect US citizens, yes, but not at the expense of killing off people in countries that did nothing to us. Their government’s job would then be to defend their citizens, leading to a rather large war. That would be like saying the government would be justified in carpet bombing a neighborhood because there are 3 crack houses in it.
Because we “feel” threatened, you say? Feelings have nothing to do with it. That North Korea is a terrorist state armed with weapons of mass destruction is a datum of objective reality. When N. Korea and other enemies arise to threaten America, it is the sworn constitutional duty of our leaders to use their awesome military might to smash such threats. We should take that treacherous snake North Korea and tear it limb from limb. Above all, we must not allow the possibility of injuring or killing innocent bystanders to paralyze our rightful actions of self-defense.
As Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute has written, “The moral principle is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.” (emphasis added) http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2547
It may be that some people in countries adjoining N. Korea will suffer grievously once the U.S. launches its long-overdue pre-emptive attack. But those deaths are not our responsibility. Once the radioactive dust has cleared, the victims’ survivors can file a lawsuit against the government of N. Korea for initiating the threat of force, prompting the U.S. to take the necessary steps to defend itself.
Interesting that you should compare a pre-emptive attack on a terrorist nation with bombing a crack house. Do selling crack and threatening the United States of America with nuclear destruction rank the same on your moral scale?
Sure, we must look after our interests and that’s why we should employ rational measures to avoid civilian South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese casualties. These are our allies economically, militarily and intellectually as are Israel and most of Europe. While we should place our interests first, this does not give America the license to completely disregard everyone else unless there is simply no choice. You wouldn’t indiscriminatly fire into a crowd to stop a pickpocket just because you have the right to self-defense.
Like Lathanar, you compare a minor criminal (in this case a pickpocket) with a rogue state that has armed itself with WMDs and is firing test missiles in our direction. If North Korea’s only offenses were selling crack and picking the pockets of tourists, it would be a waste of bandwidth even to discuss it on this forum. But make no mistake: Kim Jong Il is quickly and steadily gaining the means to destroy American population centers–as well as those in S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan. You are worried about casualties among our allies. But what would produce more casualties, war today with a despot armed with just two nukes, or war with him in a decade when he has a hundred more?
Bombing N. Korea now is the most rational and humane action we could take. In years to come the world will thank their unlistening god for what we did.
The failures of US intelligence was not because of something inherent in US intelligence, it was due to choices that were made at points in time about the way that the CIA would operate, which weakened the agencies. Those choices can be reversed.
By all means let the CIA proceed with its fine tuning and reorganization. In the meantime there is a commie nation just 20 ICBM-minutes away that is quickly developing the means to destroy us. We can either strike now while they have just a couple of nukes and a few puny missiles–or we can wait until they are armed to the teeth and capable of taking out several major U.S. cities.
I doubt George Bush thinks its evil to work for his own benefit.
Then you are not familiar with the tenets of his faith.
The reliance on satelites as the only way to determine where our threats our was one of the greatest mistakes of the CIA. There is only so much a satelite can show you. It can not show you whats inside a bunker, or a warehouse, or a subway. There are uses, but its not the be all end all to the situation. Unless you want to level every mountain where who knows what might be hiding, you are bound to miss assets.
Umm, perhaps we should send more spies into N. Korea. But not just yet. I’d hate to see all that U.S. tax-paid training go to waste once we drop the big one on Pyongyang.
I am not sure about the physics involved, but I wonder using our nuclear war heads for the explicit purpose of simply flatening the country to a sheet of paper would require such a large percentage of our stockpile that may very well give a deterent advantage to China or Russia.
No problemo. N. Korea is not a big country, and the U.S. nuclear arsenal is larger (and better maintained) than the combined arsenals of all other countries. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
Leonard Peikoff is not entirely wrong, but I have yet to see the ARI produce a press release regarding America current corruption filled relationship with Saudi Arabia, and would like to see him talk about that at some point. Otherwise he gives only a very limited and very constrained view of the Middle East.
You missed the point of the quotation in the most concrete-bound way. Peikoff’s views on Saudi Arabia are totally irrelevant as to whether he is correct in stating that one cannot simply bomb a nation like Iran and expect that whatever new government forms in the aftermath will be rid of the old evils.