| Welcome to Logical Politics. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Pre-emption; with nuclear weapons | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 11 2005, 03:33 PM (359 Views) | |
| Derek | Sep 11 2005, 03:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Contributor
  ![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
An article on page A-11 of the September 11, 2005 issue of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says that "the Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting Presidential approval to pre-empt an attack by a nation or terror group using weapons of mass destruction". This brings up several important issues. The first is pre-emption itself. While it could be considered a means of protecting the citizens (and therefore fit into the purpose of government as we've agreed to) by eliminating any potential threats, it can also serve as a catalyst for new threats by making other nations feel that they ought to attack us before we decide to pre-emptively attack them for having any sort of significant military strength. This isn't just any sort of pre-emption, though; this is supposed to be pre-emption against nations or terrorists using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons themselves. In this case, nations not using such weapons should have no reason to be incited against us. Unless, of course, they're allies of nations that do have such weaponry. This raises another question: why should other nations not be permitted to own nuclear weapons? It's one thing if they've agreed to UN resolutions not to own them, but if they've made no treaties or other such agreements not to have them, where does one nation get the right to destroy another nations' property? Wouldn't that launch us into a war? Surely thrusting the citizenry into warfare would cause more harm to them then maintaining peace. Especially if we now have several nations who legitimately own nuclear weapons all pointing them at us for fear of being pre-emptively attacked. I don't have any issues with shooting down missiles in mid-air, but to just start shooting nuclear missiles into other countries because they have them too seems to be a bad idea to me. Let's take a simple example from game theory: the prisoners dilemma. This is a simplified scenario with the following possible outcomes: 1: both players do not cooperate with each other, and neither of them wins 2: both players cooperate with each other, and they both win a little 3: one player cooperates with the other and one does not, and the non-cooperator wins more The problem with this is that if the interaction is of finite duration (say, only three interactions), while it may be better to cooperate the first few times, it makes sense to cooperate the last time; if the other player cooperates still, you've won more, and they won't be around to retaliate. The problem with this is that both players know it, so then they'll both not cooperate the last time. So instead, one thinks to do it the second to last time. But they both think of this, so they instead do it the third to last time, etc. What I'm getting at is, if someone suspects that we're going to pre-emptively strike them, they'll want to strike us first. If we make a policy of pre-emptively attacking nations with nuclear weapons, they're going to try to hit us first to avoid annihilation. Who knows how many people will be killed by the initial nuclear attacks (or how much of the planet will be left), but if enough do survive, we've also started the next world war. This doesn't sound at all like protection to me. This sounds like suicide. Based on this analysis, I don't think we ought to support pre-emptive actions unless we're already at war (in which case we're all attacking each other anyway and provoking them more won't be as significant). |
| |
 |
 
|
| Sam | Apr 4 2006, 10:01 PM Post #2 |
|
Contributor
|
It's important to clarify that the Bush doctrine is not, in fact, one of preemptive wars. A preemptive war is initiated by a country facing an imminent threat. Bush is instead advocating preventive war, or war made by one country on another using the excuse that said other country could present a threat at some undetermined future point. |
|
|
|
| Derek | Apr 5 2006, 09:17 AM Post #3 |
|
Contributor
|
Fair enough; I just ran with the language they were using. The argument against it still aplies. |
| |
|
|
|
| QuelThelos | Apr 10 2006, 02:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Contributor
|
So is it better to be slapped in the face before retaliating? To use more schoolish terms, a bully is talking all week about jumping you when you get on the bus friday afternoon (your parent's are still at work with the family car at the time, whatever you have to take the bus). Is there really a good way around this? You know approaching the bully will just get you beat up quicker, and when you get on the bus you'll get beat up. It seems logical, even if not moral, to beat the bully in his own game without losing your own blood. Maybe i'm oversimplifying. |
| "In the democracy of the dead, all men at last are equal. There is neither rank nor station nor prerogative in the republic of the grave." -John James Ingalls | |
|
|
|
| Derek | Apr 10 2006, 03:14 PM Post #5 |
|
Contributor
|
The way I understood their position was that they intended to strike anyone who has the capability to launch attacks with WMDs, as opposed to people who have the intention to. If we have credible intelligence that someone is about to attack, that's one thing, but to attack anyone with the capability to hit us seems to me to open us up to the problems I listed earlier. |
| |
|
|
|
| QuelThelos | Apr 10 2006, 03:22 PM Post #6 |
|
Contributor
|
I'll agree that people are gaining in thier technology, and military uses are usually the first to surface. Perhaps we need to adopt a way of showing them how to apply the same technology to economics. Then China will really buy the US..... |
| "In the democracy of the dead, all men at last are equal. There is neither rank nor station nor prerogative in the republic of the grave." -John James Ingalls | |
|
|
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Political Debates · Next Topic » |
1:53 AM May 25