RoR: Forum

Michael,

I'm curious to hear when you would justify using nukes.

Aquinas

Post 21

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:54pm

I just watched the O'Reilly video mentioned in post 9, and the only real problem I have with it is that I don't think civilians should be making concrete recommendations to the military (such as using nukes). I think civilians should set the principles and primary objectives, and Yaron is right about those, but it's up to the military to be doing the cost/benefit analysis about what weapons and such to use. (And again, the idea that it's wrong for a soldier to take risks is ridiculous -- that's part of what he signed up for).

Post 22

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:56pm

Shayne,

I did not see the post where someone said that it is wrong for a soldier to take risks, could you point me to it?

Aquinas

Post 23

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:00pm

Robert,

Not sure exactly what "morally beneath belief" means, but what we're talking about here is a "conspiracy of terrorists" who exist because their governments don't exist (Iraq) or their governments allow them to exist (all other dictatorships). None of us is happy that civilians will die, but we are not "targeting civilian populations." We are targeting terrorists in civilian populations.

Btw, so-called nations led by despots have no right to existence and, in fact, should be wiped out within seconds of coming into being because they pose a potential threat to American citizens just as surely as a murderer on the loose in our own country does.

Btw2, if gangsters were holed up in a hideout with hostages and were capable of getting out and regularly killing citizens, then yes, they and their hostages would soon have to be killed.

Post 24

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:06pm

Aquinas, if you can read, you can surely see that I distinguished government regimes that threaten America from terrorist gangs and conspiracies scattered widely across a nation, mingling within a population.

We most certainly have the right to use massive force, including nukes if necessary, to eradicate governments that threaten us on a national level -- including state sponsors of terrorists. Civilians will die, and probably in large numbers, as a regrettable consequence. It's also justified to bomb cities in a nation largely supportive of a regime that threatens us: cities are part of the economic support system of such regimes. The bombings of Germany and Japan in WW II were certainly justified on those grounds. Today North Korea comes to mind: if it becomes a menace we can't control or contain by lesser means, nukes may be necessary.

The militaries of Syria or Iran pose no threat to us; their regimes do, only because they shelter and support terrorists. The regimes are therefore the legitimate target, and their support systems are relatively easy to disrupt and neutralize well short of indiscriminate bombing of civilians. But deliberately targeting the civilians per se, rather than the power structure and military forces of the regime, is morally despicable -- just as it would be to eradicate domestic crime.

I would like to add that I find the macho bravado in the language used here particularly offensive: the glee with which some seem to relish the prospect of incinerating millions ought to turn the stomach of any true individualist.

Post 25

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:11pm

Aquinas,

I am neither the Commander in Chief nor a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are the ones qualified to make that call.

But as an opinion, I would say use nukes after a formal declaration of war has been made and where other means of destroying a military capacity have been exhausted, or in what is loosely called an intolerably high level of "clear and present danger" from an enemy state as defined and recommended by the President's advisors.

That's what we pay these people for.

Nukes are serious business. They got my respect. This ain't no Schwartzenegger film.

Michael

Second edit - Hear, hear, Robert B. More sanctions to you.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/27, 9:12pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/27, 9:21pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:11pm

Michael,

Nukes are just powder bombs on steroids. They are not bugaboo bombs. They are tools for a forcefully moral defense of rights. If we can use them strategically to wipe out our enemies more effectively than conventional weaponry, then that must be done. As Shayne pointed out, it must be done by an objective military trained in assessing threats and knowing forceful solutions -- and guided by a principled government's laws.

Don't confuse the readiness to use nukes with being trigger-happy. If the time was right, I wouldn't blink. If the time was wrong, I wouldn't use them.

Post 27

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:23pm

David Elmore said : "The only reason the main terrorists can hide is they know we won't use the big guns (nukes) to level whichever city they're hiding in. Meanwhile, our guys in uniform get blasted to bits. "

This is a silly emotional appeal and does not begin to make the necessary arguement for the justification of the level of mass murder you are advocating. Military targets, whether they are specific terrorists or entire governments must be targeted as directly and accurately as possible given the context and the weaponry available. This falls under the non-initiation of force principle, which means that we can only respond to an initiation of force or to viable threats of force and only against the individuals or entities guilty of initiating it. Every possible effort must be made, given the context to target only those who are force initiators. The context here is the key. If, for example we knew that a terrorist somewhere in the middle of Mexico City had his finger on a switch that will set off a nuclear weapon in New York City and L.A. in the next 30 minutes we would have to act rapidly and target ALL of Mexico City as quickly as possible. Nuclear weapons would probably be the only option in a case like that. That is as accurate as we could be given the context. Iraq is a different situation. Given the context right now over there, it would be a massive violation of individual rights to attack large civilian populations simply to get at specific groups of criminals. Collateral damage cannot be avoided in many cases and should not be an obstacle to action if it is unavoidable but the general population cannot be considered as a specific target.

A government initiating force would of course present a much much broader target and would include a wide array of military, industrial and government targets but an effort must still be made given the context to target what is necessary to destroy the government. Civilian collateral damage will be unavoidable in many cases, but they cannot be the target.

"Meanwhile, China, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Libya and others need to be on our immediate raze list -- nonobjectivist public opinion be fucking damned!"

That is quite a statement. Can you back it up? Or is that just more macho nonsense?

- Jason

Post 28

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:41pm

Well, Robert, it only took you three posts to descend to ad hominem. Feeling like breaking records tonight, eh?

When you get a handle on your emotions, why don't you point out the "glee" of those you obliquely refer to as being overjoyed at the incineration of millions and as having "macho bravado." If you're up to it, why don't you explain the latter, too.

Post 29

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:43pm

Aquinas: What I was responding to was the notion that it's wrong to risk the lives of American troops in order to prevent loss of civilian life. Follow the link in post 7 for more details.

Post 30

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:53pm

You nuke hawks are confusing counterinsurgency and police work (which are the current operations in Iraq) with traditional military warfare. The traditional warfare phase of the Iraq war occured when the US rolled into the country and faced an officially representative army of the Baathist regime: standing army vs. standing army. This phase lasted mere weeks, and it was concluded when Bush in his flight suit declared an "end to major combat operations."

Beyond that, once a government is out of the picture, you then have a citizenry which includes good people, bad people and no rule of law. Therefore, the victor assumes responsibility for basic law and order (police work) and warding off any popular revolts (counterinsurgecy). Please tell me how nuclear weapons fit into this stage of the game!!!! What would they accomplish? Let's say Bush announces that we will nuke a town in the Sunni Triangle to send a message, and then follows through with it? Every ink-thumbed Iraqi who came out to vote and actually thinks there's a small shred of good in what we did for that country would soon be ready to blow themselves up at the drop of a hat. Every member of their fledgling government would unite officially with the terrorists, and then you'd have to nuke them too. Essentially, the end result of such actions is genocide.

(Edited by Pete on 4/27, 10:39pm)

(Edited by Pete on 4/27, 10:40pm)

Post 31

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:16pm

I second every one of Robert's, Michael's, and Jason's posts.

I'd also like to add that the advocacy of outright nuclear war fails to take into account the context of today's geopolitical reality.

The use of a nuclear weapon against a major Islamic city would probably, as Pete points out, radicalize the Muslim world against the U.S. The nuclear war backers say, then, that we should just keep launching missiles until we've killed every last one of the fanatics.

This would probably result in the death of between 500 million and 1 billion people.

Even if we somehow managed to avoid an environmental catastrophe from the radioactive fallout of these attacks, the rest of the world (including traditional allies in Western Europe) would probably declare war on us as well.

For a moment, try and imagine the philosophical and historical implications of such a turn of events. Western-style liberalism, reason, and capitalism would be recast as the greatest philosophical villains in world history. The Middle Ages would seem like a walk in the park compared to the millennia of darkness that would follow.

If you are really so concerned about the lives of American soldiers, why risk precipitating a total war in which many hundreds of thousands more would be killed? Especially when recent events seem to suggest our efforts in the Middle East are prompting the first stirrings of democratic reform?

This nuclear war advocacy is an especially egregious form of rationalism... beginning with a principle (American soldiers' lives are paramount) and proceeding to "deduce," with almost no attention paid to reality or context, the allegedly proper means to uphold that principle. And of course, by the time you've reached those means, you've gone through so many logical pretzels you've completely lost sight of the goal you were reaching toward in the first place.

Post 32

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:24pm

I was in the process of writing everything that Andrew said... but it didn't sound as good. So thanks to Andrew! And to Robert, Joe, Jason, and Michael...

Yes to all of it. Every point made perfectly.

I especially wondered about the principle of American soldiers' lives being paramount... didn't see the reason in that at all.

There are some serious problems with the line of thought mentioned in this article. I fear what would happen if we all agreed with this.

~NT

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 4/27, 10:25pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:47pm

I haven't arrived at a conclusion about this.

What's the likelyhood of a primitive nuke going off in say, New York City or San Diego? Some days I'm of the opinion that most of the countries that hate America are nowhere near having the capability to do something like that. Other days I believe that those who hate us are so determined to end our way of life that they will not rest until an American city is destroyed. I just don't know. But let's be clear about one thing: If the miscreants who participated in the 9/11 scheme had the capability to destroy New York City they certainly would have.

Let's imagine that 500,000 are killed in NYC tomorrow by way of a terrorist attack. What do we do?

If the risk is genuine we are right to end that risk using whatever means necessary.

Post 34

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:39pm

In general, I admire the radicalism and adherence to principle of Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, John Lewis, etc. But instead of thinking issues thru clearly and accurately -- as Ayn Rand did -- they always seem to be aping her in that ridiculous cult-zombie manner of theirs. My suggestion here is that the whole lot of them quit Objectivism and join up with their true brethren who faithfully follow L. Ron Hubbard and Lyndon LaRouche. (Either quit voluntarily -- or be driven out.)

Attacking "justice" in warfare, as they do, is generally provocative and bracing. But because they misanalyze the issues involved -- it's mostly repellant and horrifying.

Even if ARIans are too stupid and malevolent to realize how wrong it is to massacre wholesale what they openly admit are innocents, they still ought to be able to figure out that this mindless evil policy will earn the US undying hatred from Muslims and everybody else for generations to come (as indicated by Andrew in Post 31). Thus this "nuke'em till they glow" policy won't save US lives and money -- it'll cost them. This foreign policy disaster will also destroy massive amounts of seizable wealth ("war booty" such as oil) and maybe devastate our earthly environment as well -- two more great harms to America.

Ultimately, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as firebombing Dresden and Tokyo, were very probably moral and just. The enemy deserved it and then some; this also saved US lives by hastening the end of the war. And, yes, the religious Objectivists cited above are right: we should be much more aggressive in how we initially prosecute our wars. "Kindness" here is very cruel to all. But it's still wrong to engage in casual genocide. The indiscriminate slaughter of quasi-innocent civilians who are the quasi-victims of dictatorship can only very rarely be justifiied.

Unfortunately for all of us, subtlety, nuance, thoughtfulness and perceptivity are not the strong suits of cultist robots; knee-jerk reactionism and mindless lashing out is. It's true that the lives of "innocent civilians" caught in the cross-fire properly has only minimal value to the US -- but it does have some. You can't slaughter millions to save just one US soldier.

On top of everything else, we have to remember here that the US supported the Iraqi dictatorship for decades, including with about 8 billion dollars in brides for Saddam under the oil-for-food program [says the 'New York Times,' A section, 4-24-05], as well as with weapons and technical help during the Iranian war. This makes the civilians of Iraq even more innocent and unworthy of ARI's proposed genocidal massacre.

Post 35

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:05pm

So what specifically does Robert Bidinotto's disagreement with Dr. Brook argument against just war theory? From what I can tell, given your most recent post, honestly nothing. And, if David Kelley said the same I think we'd see a different reaction.

Post 36

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:13am

I'm an Objectivist, but what does that mean? I believe in reality and reason, but for me all the rest of the Objectivist doctrine is controversial if for no other reason than I am humble in what I know. The Objectivist ethics, for example, is rational self-interest. Okay, then what? Etc. I hasten to add that it is not controversial unto itself, just religious as in a dogma. Those who live inside Objectivism are the equivalent of religious dogmatists and find no error in blowing away 200 million Muslims to save the life of one American soldier. Well, what if the soldier isn't an Objectivist? When I was in the army I knew a lot of cruddy people who were soldiers and why should I care about them now or then? True, many were good guys, but few were exceptional. Btw, can you imagine an Ayn Rand hero joining the army and hiting the beaches of Normandy to liberate France? What is missing here?

It wasn't John Galt who pulled that Project X lever, it was a scumbag scientist who used to be a "great mind." Some modern Objectivists want us to pull those levers. What an inversion!

--Brant
combat vet.

Post 37

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:28am

Wayne,

There is a small scope problem in your post.

We are working around the clock over here to see if we can annihilate about a sixth of the world's population through nuclear detonations in one fell swoop. So we are kind of busy.

The ARI-TOC thing will have to wait a bit until we finish...

//;-)

Michael

Post 38

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:58am

Bloody hell. Thanks MKS, Robert and Andrew for at least tempering war support with a concern for ethics. As for those who are sincerely advocating thermonuclear renovations to the homes of over a billion innocent people, 'the terrorists have already won' wouldn't even begin to describe the moral depravity of a world where you actually had your fingers on the button.

Post 39

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:33am