News Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[Informal Logic]

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

Excellent question. One cannot take the higher moral ground while being a hypocrite.

 

[kyleb]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.

You seem to be confused on your history, there has not been hundreds of years of hate towards Israel.

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill."

Heh, maybe I can preempt any further confusion by using an example from history and pointing out that I believe Iraq would have been well within their moral ground to try and preempt us. Granted, they never rightly had the power to do it effectively so it would have been a stupid move, but morally justifiable in its intent none the less.

Excellent question. One cannot take the higher moral ground while being a hypocrite.

I'm not sure I follow the intent of your comment; were you looking forward to being able my position as hypocrite instead of confronting stance my directly?

 

[Smurf]

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

Nuclear weapons are never justified. Pre-Emptive attacks are always justified (self-defence), the question is wether they are really pre-emptive or not (i.e. is there really an 'imminent threat').

The only instance that North Korea and the US could launch pre-emptive attacks on each other were if one of them had a squad of bombers (or missiles) headed for the other one, then attacking those missiles/bombers would be 'pre-emtive' and is, of course, justified.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is interesting to note earlier theories of big business and tendencies toward the status quo, compared to now and and how for some big business instability can be just as profitable if not more? But getting back to Bush's foreign policy, here is a nice summary of why the US has been heading the direction it has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon...eback_of_neoconservatism_under_George_W._Bush

The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes.

Gary Hart wrote an essay to point out the greatest flaw in the AEI's PNAC, which appears to be the basis for the Bush doctrine.

"The idea that government exists to protect, not oppress, the individual has an enormous power not fully understood by most Americans who take this principle for granted from birth. Far more nations will follow us because of the power of this ideal than the might of all our weapons."


Against those who view America's noblest values as an inconvenience or even hindrance to the exertion of influence abroad, Hart warns that we ignore principle only at our peril. Such an approach may serve short-term goals, but there are costs; among them is the compromising of a crucial strategic asset, America's fourth power.


Certain objectives require a military response--few serious people would disagree. The question is "whether America's purposes are best achieved through empire and force or through principle and persuasion." To suggest the former, Hart argues, is to misread both history and our current revolutionary age, one where terrorism, the internationalization of markets, information technology, eroding nation-state authority and other realities demand not doctrines of superstate unilateralism and preemption but rather appreciation for new collective security structures, international regulatory bodies, even forms of collaborative sovereignty.


Applying the best insights of strategy to statecraft, Hart finds fuzziness, overreaching, and "theological" simplicity in America's current foreign policy. Nor does he believe the war on terror, necessary in the near term, will itself serve to chart America's larger strategic course. A bracing vision of an America responsive to a full spectrum of global challenges, The Fourth Power calls for a deeper understanding both of the threats we face and the profound strengths at our disposal to fight them.

 

[Smurf]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity.

Israel has barely existed for a few decades, let alone hundreds of years.
And I find the likelyhood of Arabs using nukes against Israel to be just as, if not less, likely than the other way around and israel is a lot closer than any Arabs to getting nukes (if they don't already have them).

 

[Art]

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill."

Heh, maybe I can preempt any further confusion by using an example from history and pointing out that I believe Iraq would have been well within their moral ground to try and preempt us. Granted, they never rightly had the power to do it effectively so it would have been a stupid move, but morally justifiable in its intent none the less.

Nice to know N. Korea has your moral support if they detonate a nuke in Washington DC tomorrow.

 

[kyleb]

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[Art]

I never said anything of the sort.

Change Iraq to N. Korea (another member of the axis of evil)

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill."

Heh, maybe I can preempt any further confusion by using an example from history and pointing out that I believe Iraq would have been well within their moral ground to try and preempt us. Granted, they never rightly had the power to do it effectively so it would have been a stupid move, but morally justifiable in its intent none the less.

Why not just say what you really mean. It's okay if the US does it but not okay if it's done to the US.

 

[kyleb]

Did you eat a lot of paint-chips as a kid or something? I don't believe anything of the sort and never suggested otherwise.

 

[Skyhunter]

Israel has barely existed for a few decades, let alone hundreds of years.
And I find the likelyhood of Arabs using nukes against Israel to be just as, if not less, likely than the other way around and israel is a lot closer than any Arabs to getting nukes (if they don't already have them).

Israel has had nukes for some time now.

srael is believed to possesses the largest and most sophisticated arsenal outside of the five declared nuclear powers. Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, but abundant information is available showing that the capability exists.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/

 

[Smurf]

Yes I know they're supposed to, I was referring to their denial which may very well be true (that they don't actually have the bomb - even though they have the capability)

 

[Art]

Did you eat a lot of paint-chips as a kid or something? I don't believe anything of the sort and never suggested otherwise.

 

[kyleb]

Well I didn't; but I am still curious as to what mental deficiency drove you to conclude otherwise.

 

[Art]

Well I didn't; but I am still curious as to what mental deficiency drove you to conclude otherwise.

I think you will find personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.
p.s. I've reported your post.

 

[kyleb]

Yet that isn't a personal attack, it is an honest question.

Edit for the edited in ps: Maybe a moderator will be kind and patient enough to explain to you why I asked that question.

 

[Art]

Yes I know they're supposed to, I was referring to their denial which may very well be true (that they don't actually have the bomb - even though they have the capability)

It is generally accepted that Israel does have nuclear bombs. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ The only point of contention is how many.

 

[SOS2008]

I think you will find personal attacks are not allowed on this forum.
p.s. I've reported your post.

You guys have proven an earlier point I made that the more liberal members will disagree with one another, while conservative members are all "on message."

 

[kyleb]

But he wasn't disagreeing with me, he would have to have been capable of compending my point to accomplish that. It is clear that he never even got close to there, isn't it?

 

[loseyourname]

But he wasn't disagreeing with me, he would have to have been capable of compending my point to accomplish that. It is clear that he never even got close to there, isn't it?

Oh come on, did you honestly think SOS would miss an opportunity to throw in a little snide pejorative about conservatives?

 

[kyleb]

Honestly, I would just like to get back to the discussion of the moral validity of preemptive strikes. Things went haywire when I posted my position to the point where I even got accused of having double standards favoring the US and accused of supporting an attack from N.Korea on the US in the same damned post. Has that insanity blown over yet so that we might get back to the coversation at hand?

 

[loseyourname]

Honestly, I would just like to get back to the discussion of the moral validity of preemptive strikes. Things went haywire when I posted my position to the point where I even got accused of having double standards favoring the US and accused of supporting an attack from N.Korea on the US in the same damned post. Has that insanity blown over yet so that we might get back to the coversation at hand?

I would love nothing more than to have a nice little dispassionate discussion of military strategy. All I can say is good luck.

 

[Smurf]

A law enabling the US to use pre-emptive nuclear attacks against 'terrorist organizations' and 'rogue nations' would have the same effect as the invasion of iraq. It would only encourage the Terrorists to further decentralize and strike first and encourage rogue nations to get their own nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the US, would it not?

 

[kyleb]

There is no additional legislation needed, the policy itself is already available, the administration is just looking for funding to actually build the weapons. As I said before, I have absolutely no faith in these people to control such weapons; but, since issue was taken with the philosophy of preemption itself, I am interested in hearing any rational arguments against it.

 

[Smurf]

the administration is just looking for funding to actually build the weapons.

What weapons? More nukes?

Regardless, getting the funding would still have the effect I posted above wouldn't it?

 

[kyleb]

Nukes better suited for the task of preempting various WMD threats. As for the effects, I really can't claim to know such detials, but can't see it doing any good.

 

[loseyourname]

What weapons? More nukes?

Regardless, getting the funding would still have the effect I posted above wouldn't it?

They're trying to get smaller nukes that could take out a single weapons cache with relatively limited peripheral damage. I think they want nuclear weapons specifically for the reason StatutoryApe said - that they can neutralize any kind of biological or chemical threat and keep it from spreading. I haven't officially read this anywhere, though, and I'm not really sure, to be honest, if the fallout would be less damaging than the spread of contaminants that might result from the use of fuel-air bomb or something similar with the same blast radius.

 

[Smurf]

Ah. Well for the sake of accuracy, attacking a cache of weapons is not a pre-emptive attack, but a preventive one. You're assuming that those weapons will later be used to attack the US, they are not an 'imminent threat'.

 

[loseyourname]

It's an imminent threat if they're about to be used. Refer to the Crimson Tide example again. If something similar to that happened, that's likely where a policy like this would come into play. The distinction might be moot in the case of international terror networks, though. They aren't acquiring weapons for the purpose of threatening anybody. Whatever a terrorist group acquires, they intend to use, as quickly as they possibly can.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's an imminent threat if they're about to be used. Refer to the Crimson Tide example again. If something similar to that happened, that's likely where a policy like this would come into play. The distinction might be moot in the case of international terror networks, though. They aren't acquiring weapons for the purpose of threatening anybody. Whatever a terrorist group acquires, they intend to use, as quickly as they possibly can.

Making it unlikely that the military could respond in time to nuke terrorist WMD. If they know they are acquiring or manufacturing WMD there are other much less drastic measures to thwart such an attack. If they don't know then there is nothing to be done. So for the terrorist scenario the military would have to get the intel at the last minute, just before the terrorist get ready to use them. Not very likely.

The most likely use will be to destroy imaginary WMD as a justification for another preemptive war. (No evidence no crime.) Most likely against Iran, since they have more oil than N. Korea or Syria. Nuke their power plants and military infrastructure to make it easier for a ground invasion, being careful not to destroy the oil fields. That is the scenario I would suspect Bushco of secretly planning.

That explains why they are building bases in Iraq.

But then, I am paranoid.

 

[Smurf]

The most likely use will be to destroy imaginary WMD as a justification for another preemptive war.

Preventive war.

being careful not to destroy the oil fields.

I think this is a major misconception about Bush's goals. Destroying oil wells drives up oil prices, better for the companies. Why would Bush want to protect them? Less for halliburton to rebuild.

 

[Skyhunter]

Preventive war.I think this is a major misconception about Bush's goals. Destroying oil wells drives up oil prices, better for the companies. Why would Bush want to protect them? Less for halliburton to rebuild.

Not much of a market for radio-active oil. Have to keep the price at the pump less than alternatives.

 

[loseyourname]

Making it unlikely that the military could respond in time to nuke terrorist WMD. If they know they are acquiring or manufacturing WMD there are other much less drastic measures to thwart such an attack. If they don't know then there is nothing to be done. So for the terrorist scenario the military would have to get the intel at the last minute, just before the terrorist get ready to use them. Not very likely.

Well, I've repeatedly said that it is very unlikely, with the point being that the military needs to be ready for everything that can possibly happen, even that which is very unlikely. That is their job.

The most likely use will be to destroy imaginary WMD as a justification for another preemptive war.

Well, if you get to say it's likely that the US is going to nuke Iran in the next two years just to seize control of their oil, then I don't think you have any right to call any scenario I might dream "unlikely."

But then, I am paranoid.

At least you admit it, just as I admit that I likely don't worry nearly enough. Together we constitute a balanced point of view.

 

[SOS2008]

Oh come on, did you honestly think SOS would miss an opportunity to throw in a little snide pejorative about conservatives?

My intention was to diffuse the situation a bit, especially since both were contributing interesting posts.

A law enabling the US to use pre-emptive nuclear attacks against 'terrorist organizations' and 'rogue nations' would have the same effect as the invasion of iraq. It would only encourage the Terrorists to further decentralize and strike first and encourage rogue nations to get their own nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the US, would it not?

Exactly--this is what already has happened.

A first strike will always be against a nation state--there isn't a deserted Island where all the terrorists hang out. This is not about terrorists, this is a message to nations on the s**t list (and a long list it is). The U.S. is now seen as over-extended, so I think it is being used to compensate.

The main concern now is how does this administration define "clear and present danger" and based on what evidence (intelligence)? That they are putting nukes (fall out etc.) on the table in view of a record of inept management of things, it is frightening.

 

[kyleb]

My intention was to diffuse the situation a bit, especially since both were contributing interesting posts.Exactly--this is what already has happened..

He was imposing viewpoints on me that I never stated nore held and simply rolling his eyes at my when I pointed that fact out; how is that an interesting point?!?

 

[SOS2008]

He was imposing viewpoints on me that I never stated nore held and simply rolling his eyes at my when I pointed that fact out; how is that an interesting point?!?

These interpretations and name calling does not mean other content of value does not exist. Sometimes one can lighten up a thread with a little levity, and prevent unnecessary banning of good members. So back to the OP...

 

[kyleb]

How about we get back to where the converstation was derailed, and since you claim to see content of value in Art's comments; you can continue from this:

I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill."

 

[edward]

The nuclear pre-emptive strike as described by the pentagon still leads me to believe that this is more about giving Iran and Syria something to think about.
Both countries have been warned recently by the US.

Both countries know that we do not have the conventional military capability to do anything significant. As I stated earlier, anything nuclear exploding in Syria would endanger American soldiers in Iraq. China has signed a multi billion dollar oil deal with Iran, meaning we don't dare touch that can of worms.

Exactly who are we going to bomb? "Some rogue terrorist group somwhere" is not a clearly defined target. Even Colin Powells mobile biological weapons labs were never seen, except as a figment of someones imagination.

In 2002 Bush stated that the U.S. military would be involved in pre-emptive conventional operations against terrorism. He also that year said that nuclear weapons would not be considered. Talk about flip flopping.

The nuclear option always gets a favorable response from the hawks and the chicken hawks. And at the current time Bush needs something favorable happening or at least appearing to happen.

There is more propaganda involved with this latest threat of nuclear strikes than there is substance. The Pentagon can not say exactly, who ,where ,when or what will be attacked.

A nuclear strike anywhere against Isalmics will only open an eventual Pandoras box of disaster on the American people.

There could be WMD already stashed here in the USA as we discuss this situation. 9/11 was an inside the country operation.

 

[vanesch]

Exactly who are we going to bomb? "Some rogue terrorist group somwhere" is not a clearly defined target. Even Colin Powells mobile biological weapons labs were never seen, except as a figment of someones imagination.

Hey, if those weapons are in someone's imagination, then that's where they have to throw the bombs ! On the head of those having these imaginations !

 

[loseyourname]

The nuclear pre-emptive strike as described by the pentagon still leads me to believe that this is more about giving Iran and Syria something to think about.

I don't doubt that that's a big part of it, but that doesn't take away from the need for our military to have a comprehensive policy capable of responding to any possibility. As many people point out about the end of WWII, Truman probably used the bomb in large part to send a warning to the Soviets, but that doesn't mean using it didn't save hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Exactly who are we going to bomb? "Some rogue terrorist group somwhere" is not a clearly defined target. Even Colin Powells mobile biological weapons labs were never seen, except as a figment of someones imagination.

The only legitimate use of this policy I could imagine remains in the events of either some group managing to seize a silo or cache of some other form of weapons which they would then deploy. Either that or a rogue nation (I hate that term, but really can't think of anything better) getting ready to fire off their own weapons.

The nuclear option always gets a favorable response from the hawks and the chicken hawks.

Unfortunately, these things are always going to hound our thinking on such matters. There probably exist elements in the citizenry that wouldn't mind seeing us nuke the entire middle east indiscriminately and without warning.

There is more propaganda involved with this latest threat of nuclear strikes than there is substance. The Pentagon can not say exactly, who ,where ,when or what will be attacked.

I would kind of hope we wouldn't have to. I'd be much more scared if the administration asked for nuclear capability because they wanted to use it imminently on a specific target. As it stands, this looks like a strategic policy that will likely never be realized in any tactical situation.

There could be WMD already stashed here in the USA as we discuss this situation. 9/11 was an inside the country operation.

Could be, but solving problem A doesn't have to exclude solving problem B.

 

[Art]

How about we get back to where the converstation was derailed, and since you claim to see content of value in Art's comments; you can continue from this:

You serendipitously missed out this part of your quote,

Heh, maybe I can preempt any further confusion by using an example from history and pointing out that I believe Iraq would have been well within their moral ground to try and preempt us. Granted, they never rightly had the power to do it effectively so it would have been a stupid move, but morally justifiable in its intent none the less.

My question was if N. Korea was substituted for Iraq in the above would this quote from you still hold? Rather than answer you resorted to ad hominem attacks.
BTW As regards the personal attacks I would have simply replied in kind but being a little close to the points limit and not wishing to go the same way as TSM I figured I'd take the more 'responsible' route.

 

[kyleb]

You serendipitously missed out this part of your quote,

I left out that part of the quote because it isn't directly relevant to the question you asked. It is a separate example which I hoped might help you understand my position.

My question was if N. Korea was substituted for Iraq in the above would this quote from you still hold?

Actually, you didn't ask a question after that comment, but rather quoted it and responded with:

Nice to know N. Korea has your moral support if they detonate a nuke in Washington DC tomorrow.

Note that this was not a question.

Rather than answer you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Please look back to my response to your non-question:

I never said anything of the sort.

That was not ad hominem attack by any means, but rather a statement of fact.

BTW As regards the personal attacks I would have simply replied in kind but being a little close to the points limit and not wishing to go the same way as TSM I figured I'd take the more 'responsible' route.

It seems to me that the responsible thing at this point would be to get back to the subject and respond with the clarifcation I asked for:

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill.".

 

[Skyhunter]

The only legitimate use of this policy I could imagine remains in the events of either some group managing to seize a silo or cache of some other form of weapons which they would then deploy. Either that or a rogue nation (I hate that term, but really can't think of anything better) getting ready to fire off their own weapons.

There are many better security measures we could take to prevent the seizing of a silo, or the acquisition of other WMD. Attacking say North Korea's or Iran's nuclear facilities would be more likely.

Unfortunately, these things are always going to hound our thinking on such matters. There probably exist elements in the citizenry that wouldn't mind seeing us nuke the entire middle east indiscriminately and without warning.

I have heard this option suggested by right wing radio hosts more than once.

I would kind of hope we wouldn't have to. I'd be much more scared if the administration asked for nuclear capability because they wanted to use it imminently on a specific target. As it stands, this looks like a strategic policy that will likely never be realized in any tactical situation.

It is naive to think that they would spell out their intentions. I don't trust them. They have lied about war before. I believe they have a target in mind already. Let's just hope I am wrong, or that they don't get the opportunity.

 

[loseyourname]

There are many better security measures we could take to prevent the seizing of a silo, or the acquisition of other WMD. Attacking say North Korea's or Iran's nuclear facilities would be more likely.

I don't mean someone seizing an American silo. We can't protect other nations' nukes, unless you want a US military presence in every nuclear capable country. I certainly don't.

I have heard this option suggested by right wing radio hosts more than once.

I've been hearing it suggested since I was old to know what was being said. Not just by radio hosts, but by regular everyday people.

It is naive to think that they would spell out their intentions. I don't trust them. They have lied about war before. I believe they have a target in mind already. Let's just hope I am wrong, or that they don't get the opportunity.

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

I would have to agree. Anyone who nuked any foriegn target would be at the center of a **** storm if they did. No one has done it since WWII and the only reason the US got away with it then was because of the war and they scared everyone because they were the only ones with the capability.
Theoretically they could use smaller tactical devices somewhere that won't garner as much attention to test the waters but even that would set off way too many alarms with too many nations for them to pull it off and proceed with bigger operations.
Really it would be just too entirely stupid a stunt to pull off and I'm sure that anyone with half a brain between them in the White House or Pentagon wouldn't allow it to happen without a damn good reason. Ofcourse I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of some of these people than most of you so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

 

[Smurf]

and because no one had used it before.

 

[rachmaninoff]

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

In the U.S.? E.g., should the U.S. nuke itself in order to contain a pandemic?

 

[SOS2008]

I've been hearing it suggested since I was old to know what was being said. Not just by radio hosts, but by regular everyday people.

I have too. I know Christians who dislike the Muslim faith, and believe Muslims want to eradicate all Infidels from the face of the Earth, then add to that the neocon beliefs, and add to that the "ugly Arab" image that the media has projected, and if the person is a supremest...

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

The majority of the world opposed the invasion of Iraq, but what could be done? The UN wouldn't touch it either. What would be done in the case of Nukes?

 

[Skyhunter]

Anyone who nuked any foriegn target would be at the center of a **** storm if they did.

Really it would be just too entirely stupid a stunt to pull off and I'm sure that anyone with half a brain between them in the White House or Pentagon wouldn't allow it to happen without a damn good reason. Ofcourse I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of some of these people than most of you so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

I envy you your beliefs. Wish I still had that kind of faith.

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

It seems like it would be effective for containment. But I would rather not test it.

 

[Smurf]

I envy you your beliefs. Wish I still had that kind of faith.

Me too. I really wish I could agree with Ape on that one. You just don't know any more though, not since this war on terror crap people have been falling over themselves to do Bush's favors.

 

[Smurf]

Taking a marxist perspective. It's encouraging that so many countries, even those like Iran, are pursuing nuclear technology and weapons, as that represents one of the biggest inequalities between the richer and poorer countries. It's good to see that being challenged recently, and EU and US attempts to stifle that aren't going to lead to anything good.