News Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[Smurf]

Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.

 

[Informal Logic]

But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.

Yes, it did in that scenario.

These weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, so 1) how much of a deterrence will these create? and 2) in regard to terrorists, will it function as a deterrence or a recruiting tool? And as someone mentioned, it also caused the arms race--the current scenario involves possible proliferation within numerous 'rogue' nations (North Korea already, and Iran in the process).

 

[kyleb]

Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.

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.

 

[deckart]

I sure am teetering on the idea of turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. Unfortunately, there would be too many "friendlies" at any given time. :)

 

[Smurf]

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.

My bad, I was thinking preventive. Wrong term

 

[kyleb]

I whole heartedly argee with you on the idea of preventive attacks, just wanted to clarify the moral validity of preemption.

 

[deckart]

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.

 

[Art]

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?

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

I do not think any country, regardless of years of conflict, will ever take nuclear weapons so lightly. Even considering conventional warfare--any Arab country will always think twice about a military attack against Israel, and I should think Israel would think twice in reverse.

 

[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?