> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 2:01 PM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: RE: Preparations
> >As a civilised nation, the proper way with dealing with that would be
> >the procedure I mentioned earlier (find the terrorists, arrest them,
> >put them on trial, convict them). If you cannot actually catch the
> >criminals (or have them handed over by whatever country harbours
> >them, you will have to start a war against that country in order to
> > catch the terrorists.
> >
> >This is basically a cost-benefit analysis: is the damage done (both in
> >people killed, and in damage to infrastructure) high enough to
> >validate going to war? Is the damage high enough to spend huge amounts
> >of money on a military action, and risk the lives of your own troops?
>
> Okaaaay! Now we are getting somewhere. (It was very clever of you
> to use my three favorite words: "cost-benefit analysis." :)
Yeah, well, I cannot help it that I am brilliant... :-)
> So, if I understand you correctly, the United States *might* have to go
> to war over this, if the United States decides that:
> P = Probability of future successfull terrorist attacks
> D = Likely Total Damages (people, infrastructure, and psychological
> damage) from future successful terrorist attacks
> C = Total cost of going to war (money, American lives, allied lives,
> innocent civilian casualties, etc.)
>
> and that
>
> P * D > C
>
> Correct?
That would be valid. I did not include P in my argument, though, so based on
my arguments war might be justified if D > C.
> Moreover, if the USA decideds that P * D > C, then this war would be
> justified? Right?
It would justify it for the US, yes. Your allies may have a different
opinion though, based on the value they assign to the various elements in
the equation. Property damage and costs of deploying troops and weapons can
be assigned a value in hard dollars, but that is virtually impossible with
psychological damage and the "cost" of lives. After all, how do you put a
price tag on psychological damage, and how much is a human life worth to
you?
It is also pretty difficult to determine the value of P -- how do you
determine if it is 10%, or 25%, or perhaps even 100%? And would there be a
minimum value required for P (say, 5%) before even considering going to war?
P can realistically not have a value of 0%; the only way to be absolutely
1005 sure that future terrorist attacks will not happen is to kill the
entire world population. I do not think even the US would go *that* far to
eradicate terrorism...
> Question, however, even if the above war is justified, would you
> consider it a war of self-defence or a war of aggression?
I am not sure yet; I will have to sit on this for a while.
> I think we're actually on the same page here - if not, let me know.
Hm. We actually might be.
<falls down on his knees, begging to the List>
I beg of you, please forgive me! I *know* it is against List Policy to agree
with JDG! Forgive me! I did not know what I was doing! I promise I will do
better in the future! Please forgive me!
<gets back on his feet, brushes dust off of pants>
<grin>
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
