Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Justice, ending injustice, right and wrong, and death

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
  2. No

    3 vote(s)
  1. Sep 7, 2004 #1
    A simple yes or no, to satisfy my personal curiousity.

    Nation X has been killing its citizens by the thousand, stuffing them into mass graves. The estimated death toll is 500,000, and looks like it will reach a million within ten years.

    Nation Y wishes to invade. For the purposes of this question, let's assume Nation Y's motives are entirely to do with saving lives, and there is nothing else to be gained from invading. Heck, maybe it will even be a financial loss for all involved. Either way, Nation Y wants to invade, destroy the government of Nation X, and prevent further murders. However, Nation Y predicts that the invasion will cost the lives of ten thousand innocent citizens of Nation X, plus or minus 25%.

    Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 7, 2004 #2
    A more efficient way of removing the government would be mass assassination and support of rebels, seeing as with all likely hood its a dictatorship it will be vunerable to this kind of influence.
  4. Sep 7, 2004 #3
    This is Nation X and Nation Y in this "hypothetical" and NOT America versus Iraq... so, where there IS a United Nations there is a forum and authority outside any one nation for such matters to be addressed. If this was about Iraq versus America then I would have to say, NO... because our overriding stated reasons within the UN were NOT about mass graves and genocide, they were about self perservation of our own society in the face of some trumped up threat...genocide by nerve agents was an aside in this argument presented both by Powell and Bush at the UN.

    In the real world this question belongs in the United Nations just as the example of Kosovo illustrates. Any one nation taking it upon themselves outside of international law is itself risking a dangerous precedent that threatens to eventually find visited upon itself.
  5. Sep 7, 2004 #4
    A simple YES or NO is impossible. This is not a Do you like Cinnamon or Spearmint question.
  6. Sep 7, 2004 #5
    I do agree that a simple yes or no to the question is impossible
  7. Sep 7, 2004 #6
    The problem is that the example is over simplified. In politics everything is overly simplified, that is why candiates make it seem like there is one clear answer... if there was one simple answer don't u think everybody could agree on it.
  8. Sep 7, 2004 #7

    Okay, okay, but its not exactly what you'd call a 'soup question.'

    My answer then to the way this is presented is NO.

    Tom, did you mean to say in your reply to me that you DO NOT agree, or is the way it appears now correct? Cornfused.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
  9. Sep 7, 2004 #8
    Wouldn't it be grand if politicians and attorneys all went to some other planet to live.
  10. Sep 7, 2004 #9
    It's based on the USA-Iraq events? Well, duh. I wished to abstract it out a bit and focus solely on the issue of lives lost. Forget about the UN and other such forces. Focus only on whether it is right or wrong to invade Nation X. How hard can it be to pick yes or no, right or wrong? Pick one, then please supply a reason down here, so others might consider it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook