----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:48 PM Subject: RE: Bitter Fruit
> From: Dan Minette > > Would this be a general rule for the US being engaged in a > war? That we > only use our military against countries that pose a direct > threat to harm > the US? > >I would like to think it went further than that. I don't think >democracies should start wars at all. And what is a direct threat? Don't >all the current nuclear powers pose a direct threat? At the moment, none of the known nuclear powers posed a direct threat to the United States. It is possible that North Korea will. North Korea is now on the edge of posing a direct threat to Japan. It is possible, if something doesn't stop them, within 10 years they will pose a significant threat to the entire world. >Does that mean war should be declared on China, Russia, France etc? No, so where do you do >draw the line?. There are a number of factors that are involved. At the moment, none of these three countries pose a realistic threat to the US. On paper, of course, they could aim the missles at the US and fire them, but that's not on the option list of any of those governments. I think it would be worthwhile to look back at the times countries did pose a direct threat and see why a war should not have been started. Even when the United States had vast nuclear superiority, such as in the early 50s, defeating either China or the USSR, using these weapons, would be a venture that would take H-bombs dropped on a number of cities, and the loss of tens of millions of lives. In addition, with China, it's not clear that the US would/could do more than assure themselves that China would not have enough of an industrial base to develop a hydrogen bomb. Britian and France were allies, and the US let them have techniques to build bombs to make the deterrent to the Soviet Union against taking over Western Europe higher. So, the US wanted them to have nuclear weapons. But, that action did entail a great deal of risk for the US. In October, the Cuban missle crisis brought the US to the brink of nuclear war....the best estimates of the time was that the chances were 50-50. With some operational missles in Cuba, the US was in difficult straits. With a full complement, the US would be in a position where it would either have to stand aside if the USSR acted in Europe (e.g. Berlin) or risk greater loss of life defending Europe. I think the nuclear war would have killed at least 20-40 million Americans. If I understand correctly, you feel that the US would have been morally oblidged to forstall preventing this scenario, even if it could be done with minimal loss of life, overturning a government that killed ~40 million of its own citizens. I would argue it was wrong because it couldn't have been done with minimal loss of life. Lets now look at another scenerio from this '60s. This time, it was a clear prementive action. In '67, the UN obediently withdrew their peacekeepers at the request of the Arabs. Very large armies were poised on all of the borders of Israel (about a half a million troops, 3000 tanks and 800 aircraft) significantly outgunning and outmanning the Israelie forces. In addition, many of the Israelie forces were reservists, called up for short term fighting. Israel could not afford to have them sit and wait for weeks. If I understand your position correctly, Israel was morally oblidged to take the first blow....even if there was a real chance it would cease to exist if it followed this strategy. Is this an accurate understanding? >I don't think I agree with this idea of the right to pre-emptive strike. If the US has it, >then so does every other nation (or don't they, and if not, why not?). > and as the US most certainly does pose a direct threat to every nation on >earth, You really think that there is a chance that the US will attack the Scotland in order to control the production of Scotch? If you look at the pattern of the last 50 years, you can see that the probability of US military action against any given country is fairly low. If it is not communist then the probability becomes very low, and is limited to a handful of dictatorships. >then they all have the right to a pre-emptive strike against the US, using whatever >means they have available, eg planes, suicide bombers etc. I think pre-emptive >strike is too dangerous a precedent But, there have been precidents of invastions of countries that have posed no threats at all...not just a pre-emtive strike, but a siezure of land. The data indicates that it's practical considerations, not legal considerations that limit these types of strikes. With rare exception, such as the Faulkins, the practical considerations involve the likely response of the United States. >As for "humanitarian" wars, well, that's more complex, but they should >not really be wars, but peace keeping missions, mounted at the behest of >the country concerned, If there are armies involved in a genocide, how is it not a war. For example, would you say that the actions of the UN during the Balkins war was correct, and the actions of NATO were wrong? >or if that country has basically ceased to exist, >then at the behest of a world body, like the UN. So, it would be immoral to stop a genocide within a country if one of the veto powers considers letting that genocide continue to be in their best interest? Finally, I'll give my basic vantage point. The fundamental, immutable rules of morality are very basic: on the level of accepting the value of each human being. Questions of the morality of particular actions are dependant on the results of taking the actions as well as the results of not taking the actions. I'll give an example of this. The Dalia Lama stated that armed resistance in Tibet is immoral. It wasn't because armed resistance to occupiers is inherently immoral, but becasue it would only result in the slaughter of thousands, without ending the resistance. He stated that the Allies fighting WWII was moral. He said the jury was out on Iraq. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
