> From: Dan Minette > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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.
Why will North Korea pose a direct threat to Japan when, say, China doesn't, or perhaps more pertinently, wont? And are you saying that this potential threat would justify an invasion of North Korea? > > >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. > What about the options list of the next Russian President, whoever he may be. And attacking America was on Saddams options list was it? I know he was cruel, I did not think he was an idiot. So, it just depends on how well the US gets on with the government. If they like them, then no threat, no pre-emptive strike, and if they don't, then the US can invade at will? Sound great if you are the US, sucks if you aren't. > 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. > But there wasn't a war. And presumably the USSR was doing something to put itself in a position whereby it had some bargaining power in the event of a US pre-emptive strike. Again, all this is fine if you are the US, sucks if you aren't. Are you denying the moral right of a country to defend itself against potential US aggression? Even if that aggression might be based on a misreading of US politics, and perhaps internal manipulation of the countries media to build up feelings against the US, to justify its actions? Luckily the US would never do anything like that :). And again, this is all very different from starting a war. > 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 am to young to recall the politics and events of that time. As you paint it, a defacto state of war existed anyway, in which case it was not really a pre-emptive strike. Troops were being moved into an agreed de-militarized zone and shipping was threatened. If someone else is making the troop movements and doing the sabre rattling, that is a very different thing from you doing the troop movements and sabre rattling. The former is a matter of national defence, the latter is an act of aggression, which is what I am opposed to. And, in the long run, was it the right thing to do anyway? As events demonstrated, Israel had it all over the "bad guys" and it has had a long flow on effect in terms of setting precedents. Witness the Yom Kippur war in 1973. What would have happened if they had just sat and waited? Would Egypt have attacked, and Jordan and Syria?Would the Middle East be the place it is today? Would Arabs feel so happy with attacking people at will if the supposed "moral" democracies had not done it first? > > >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. > No, but they attacked Iraq for example. And its these very dictators that are the issue, they are the ones who will use this supposed "right" to launch pre-emptive strikes, not Scotland. As it happens, any leader that thinks he can attack the US and get away with it is unhinged at best. But setting the precedent that the US might attack at any moment, because the current US president does not like said country, leader etc is a pretty good way to unhinge people and make then do stupid things like develop weapons of mass destruction as deterrents to US attack. > >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. > Certainly, and US response to wars of aggression is fine, its when they, or other supposedly peaceful democracies start them that I am worried about. > >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? > That's a complex question. Honestly I don't know enough to answer that. As I said, genocide is a different issue. I suppose my basic position is that someone else started it, and others moved in to end it. That is very different from starting it yourself. > >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? > No, I did not say that, see above. However, once again you are putting the US up as a paragon of morality, opposed by all those evil Frenchies and nasty russkies who only ever do things in their own self interest. What about the fact that some of these powers opposed the war in Iraq. Were they not morally obliged to oppose it if they believed it was wrong? Or are French and German morals worth less than American morals? > 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. > Umm, let me think on that. It does presuppose that one is pretty clear on the outcomes of action or inaction, which implies pretty good intelligence and forward thinking. That is often difficult when it comes to wars, cos if the outcomes were that easy to predict, I doubt we would be having them. > 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. > I wouldn't dare argue with the Dalai Lama on maters of morality, especially in relation to Tibet. As for the others, I'd agree about WWII, it was clearly a defensive war. Iraq... ummm. My take is that it probably was immoral (cos I believe starting wars is), but my real objection to it was that it was just a really stupid idea. I am not opposed to wars (well, I am, but you know what I mean), I am a pragmatist at heart. I just don't think we should start them. I have no problem with wars of defence, or even intervention to save lives on a massive scale (though that's more complex). I have a problem with a bunch of guys I elected, sitting round a table and saying "Lets invade Iraq". Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
