----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> 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.) What if he has that capacity and takes over Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and the UAE, stating that he will hit 20 European cities if he is met with US or European resistance. He has already rolled the dice in trying to kill Bush Sr, so he is clearly willing to risk his life to meet his goals. How willing would the US be to send in an army to stop this invasion? The crime model assumes that there is a state that has overwhelming power with respect to the individual. The reason we can afford to wait until a crime has been committed is the fact that the state can still protect itself in that manner. If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
