Dan Minette wrote: > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, > N. Korea without the > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. > Would it have been wrong > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and > ICBMs? Why is stopping > them more frightening than not stopping them?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam > Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to > destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? > What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its > response? Of course the US would be justified in responding. No one has ever said that they wouldn't be, and the scale of response to such a terrible crime would no doubt be huge, to prevent anyone else from ever trying it again. There's nothing wrong with that. But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way of beating them in a war. There's no reason. > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and > _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other cities as well.) > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no > explicit threats. Same two questions. It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In this case, diplomatic and economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq to make him disarm. Or failing that, at least pledge not to attack other nations pre-emptively. > Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to > acquire nuclear weapons. > > He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. > > In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. It just doesn't follow from your premises. Of course Saddam should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. If hasn't commited a crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you punish him? That's just vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind of flawed reasoning would have gotten us all into world war III a long time ago if earlier statesmen had thought the same way. > In which case it seems to me that your argument is > that we should wait until _after_ New York is > destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I > disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if > that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do > you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ > pre-emptive war? We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I certainly don't want to see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly don't want the US (or anyone else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to its safety by getting into unnecessary conflicts that only make the situation worse. So yes, I really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the case where no aggressive act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with. I mean, really - do you think New York will be made safer by this war? No. The invasion of Iraq is like a red flag to Islamic Fundamentalists. It makes their vendetta against the United States seem all the more logical, resonable, and seductive, because it seems to confirm their worst fears. Many future terrorists have been created in the last ten days, and the world is a more dangerous place because of that. Kevin Street _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
