"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> As for missile defense - many rational people believe that the threat is
> very real.
a lot of people would agree that it is real - but still view it as
unlikely. in particular less likely than a number of things that
proponents of 'missile defence' are unwilling to spend money on. a
lot of the people who perceive the threat as real also do not find
any of the evidence that a missile defence is possible to be
persuasive. and then there is the issue of treaties, treaties that
'missile defence advocates' _seem_ more willing to abrogate than
renegotiate.
> Now, the conventional logic by liberals is that Mutually Assured
> Destruction will continue to protect us.
not the liberals i know. the ones i know thought it was an unethical
approach and continues to be an unethical approach. (these are folk
who would like a missile defence if it was actually possible and
controlled by a government who would not use it to make a first
strike 'survivable'. they are not convinced that either is something
they are likely to see - although they do like the idea.) besides,
all it takes is one madman for Mutually Assured Destruction is really
ruin your whole day.
> many
> liberals argue that using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
> uncalled for.
yup!
> So, let's say that said despot lobs a nuclear weapon at
> Norfolk, VA.
Boo! Hiss! unsporting action by despot! (although bringing it in by
ship was a clever move - snuck right past that missile defence.)
> Will the American people *really* tolerate a retaliatory
> nuclear attack that serve only to wipe out hundres of thousands of
> Pakistani civilians?
i am fairly certain that the majority of the population of the
United States would not only tolerate such an action but would
consider any hesitation in launching it to be an impeachable offence.
remember, most of the US population is not particularly 'liberal' and
would be very very angry.
besides - i don't think that anyone who has any chance of getting
elected to the Presidency is going to wait for poll results, consult
a focus group, or do more than notify Congress before launching a
retaliatory strike.
> After all, said despot is hardly in power based on
> the popular support of his citizens. Indeed, such a retaliatory strike
> would likely only harden the Pakistani people (and the Muslim world) in
> opposition against us.
the treatment of Iraq suggests otherwise. Saddam Hussein is not
popularly elected, is clearly repressive, and is essentially unharmed
by the economic sanctions which are harming and hardening the Iraqi
people and the Muslim world - yet the sanctions are almost
unprotested in the United States and are little discussed. the US
government is quite able to act in destructive ways which harm its
own interests.
> Besides, since that was the *only* Pakistani ICBM -
> its not like nuclear retaliation was necessary to protect us from future
> nuclear strikes.
Iraq is pretty darn disarmed too. i don't think 'knowing' that this
hypothetical future Pakistan could not do it again would reduce the
inclination to nuke them.
> SO, if the United States isn't going to retaliate with nuclear destruction
> on a minor nuclear power - then the whole logic of Mutually Assured
> Destruction breaks down.
works for me - i never thought the idea was morally acceptable in
the first place.
> Suddenly, a petty dictator with the weapon can
> *logically* choose to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon in order
> to get what he wants.
what? and destroy his best market? anger the safety valve which take
his dissidents? deprive his young people of access to good
universities? make his neighbours both angry with him and afraid of
him? destroy any chance that the rest of the world sees him as the
legitimate ruler of X?
> all weapons become outdated eventually - but that has never
> been a good reason to not develop them.
uh.... it is still possible to kill with a thrown rock or a
fire-sharpened stick. no weapon ever goes out of date - although i'm
inclined to suggest that this is a reason to not develop them....
> Once the USA deploys a Missile
> Defence, somebody somewhere will begin working on a way to thwart the
> defence - but we'll keep working to keep our defences ahead of the game.
indeed - but is it really a game that we want to play? perhaps we
should play some other games, ones that are more profitable and more
unambiguously moral. (where would Europe and Japan be now if the US
and its allies had treated the Axis powers after WWII like they are
now treating Iraq? perhaps the Marshall Plan was more cost-effective
than repressing 'those bad guys'....perhaps there are more effective
ways to handle the possibility of a missile attack.)
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
