posted
We wouldn't be, Ziyal. There's a significant difference between a first strike and a retaliatory strike. Sure, you don't want to do what you find reprehensible about your enemies, but what we find reprehensible is NOT the idea of a retaliatory defensive strike once a war has begun. It's the idea of a FIRST strike with the intent to start a war, which is not what anyone is proposing.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In other words, it's a question not of what you do, but of why you do it.
In this case, yes.
Or perhaps a question of whether the ends justify the means.
Of COURSE the ends justify the means. The only reason that phrase gets a bad rap is that people who have whacked-out judgement capabilities are usually the ones that measure the desirability of the end. Say (totally hypothetically, of course) that the situation was such that the ONLY way to prevent the entire population of the planet from being killed was to nuke Idaho. Yes, the means are undesirable, and under any other circumstances REALLY mean, but the end, i.e. saving six billion other people, justifys it.
The ends can always justify the means, so long as you have a clear perception of the values of both.
As to how this relates to the subject at hand...
End: death of many enemy soldiers, preventing death of many of ours.
Means: Use of one tactical nuclear weapon.
Since there's nothing inherantly bad about the means, there's nothing that needs to be justified in the first place.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Of COURSE the ends justify the means. The only reason that phrase gets a bad rap is that people who have whacked-out judgement capabilities are usually the ones that measure the desirability of the end.
So you don't have a problem with the Nazi's gassing 6 million Jews per se, just that it was done for a relatively minor end, in that the average German didn't want them living next door?
quote:End: death of many enemy soldiers, preventing death of many of ours.
Means: Use of one tactical nuclear weapon
That's absurd. By this logic, you're saying that the lives of your people are worth so much more than those of the enemy, that it's best to exterminate them long before they can threaten any of your people. Never mind that, say, many Iraqi soldiers maybe aren't rabid Husseinophiles and have no choice but to be where they are. By this logic, it makes it OK to nuke anyone (who can't nuke you back) rather than commit conventional forces.
quote:Since there's nothing inherantly bad about the means, there's nothing that needs to be justified in the first place.
Using the same logic you've just espoused above, the Axis of Evil can use their non-nuclear Bio/Chem weapons on your conventional forces first (in order to kill many of your troops, to prevent the death of theirs). To them, gassing an American division wouldn't be inherently bad.
posted
So you don't have a problem with the Nazi's gassing 6 million Jews per se, just that it was done for a relatively minor end, in that the average German didn't want them living next door?
Of course I have a problem with that. I might (MIGHT) not if there was some end to justify it, i.e. saving the planet or something, but there was none, and the only ones I can come up with are totally fanciful.
By this logic, you're saying that the lives of your people are worth so much more than those of the enemy, that it's best to exterminate them long before they can threaten any of your people.
How do you get the "long before" part? If we're in a major war, I'm all for wiping out the enemy army with zero casualties on our part, if such a thing is feasable. Yeah, war sucks all around, but better their soldiers than ours.
Never mind that, say, many Iraqi soldiers maybe aren't rabid Husseinophiles and have no choice but to be where they are.
They're still soldiers. They may not DESERVE to die, but if they've got a gun and intend to use it on our people, then it's necessary.
By this logic, it makes it OK to nuke anyone (who can't nuke you back) rather than commit conventional forces.
Now I didn't say THAT. I'd prefer conventional forces if it's feasable, simply due to environmental concerns. But if you're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use a nuke, I'm all for it. That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Using the same logic you've just espoused above, the Axis of Evil can use their non-nuclear Bio/Chem weapons on your conventional forces first (in order to kill many of your troops, to prevent the death of theirs). To them, gassing an American division wouldn't be inherently bad.
Your point being?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course I have a problem with that. I might (MIGHT) not if there was some end to justify it, i.e. saving the planet or something, but there was none, and the only ones I can come up with are totally fanciful.
Y'know, I wouldn't mind hearing some Omega-Rationaliztions of the Holocaust. I'm they be rip-roaring adventure.
Oh, the Holocaust did save the world. Remember the gigantic Zionist movement to take over the world. With the Templars and the Illuminati? So, in effect, HITLER SAVED THE WORLD
If we're in a major war, I'm all for wiping out the enemy army with zero casualties on our part,
It's a good thing no other government has thought of this. Only Americans can come up with this idea, so you're in the free and clear. Always.
That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I remember those. Chemical/Nuclear/Biological weapon research mainstays of the Japanese military, where they were developing the X-56 Stealth Laser Tank. They were "holding a massive force of gun-wielding soldiers, who intended to do harm to us (Americans)", so issa good thang we'd done gone bombed them. Because they were important. Strategically. And not the Americans ejaculating over their new toy. No.
Your point being?
That Americans will die. You use weapons of mass destruction, and in retaliation, someone will use one on you. You think that big ol' bombs will help your people, when, all that they'll do is ensure the deaths of many more than conventional fighting will allow.
HITLER SAVED THE WORLD
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, at least he's admitting the Holocaust happened. . .
I hope CC's next version of Flare includes a feature which enables me to say "Your point being?" in a silly voice. My point, Omeychops, is: you're saying that while the idea of the Evil Axis using their WMDs to get us because they'll lose by conventional means just goes to prove they're inherently evil, while if we do the same thing to them for the same reasons we're completely justified.
You say:
quote:But if you're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use a nuke, I'm all for it. That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Now imagine some Iraqi/Libyan/North Korean general saying: "we're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use our biological or chemical weapons. That's the exact same line of reasoning they used when the decision to hit Japan was made."
How is that different? Or would you have us believe that the life of a human being born in one of those countries is somehow less valuable than the life of a human being born in the United States?
quote: Or would you have us believe that the life of a human being born in one of those countries is somehow less valuable than the life of a human being born in the United States
Your point being?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Now imagine some Iraqi/Libyan/North Korean general saying: "we're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use our biological or chemical weapons. That's the exact same line of reasoning they used when the decision to hit Japan was made." How is that different?
It's different in that we did not START the war. It's also different in that the Axis of Evil as currently defined is a problem because they attack CIVILIAN targets, not military.
Y'know, I wouldn't mind hearing some Omega-Rationaliztions of the Holocaust.
You want some of my fanciful situations where the end would justify killing six million innocents? Um... OK, say Q decided to play a little game, just to see how we'd react.
I said they were fanciful.
You use weapons of mass destruction, and in retaliation, someone will use one on you.
That's why we avoid proliferation as best we can.
You think that big ol' bombs will help your people, when, all that they'll do is ensure the deaths of many more than conventional fighting will allow.
No more than lots of little bombs would. There is NOTHING magical about a nuke. It's just really (REALLY) powerful for the size. People need to realize that it's not a question of the weapon used, it's a question of what you're hitting. We are NOT talking about nuking entire cities, here. We're talking about hitting troops.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I was readin this topic and i tend to think that nuclear armaments are the worst thing that a country can make. not only will it scare other governments into not attacking you. but it makes you a prime target for black market nuke thefts. ie: Russia's nuclear stockpiles are rumoured to be very lax in security. And i heard the US was worried about the security for the indian and pakistani stockpiles. Can we really truly know whether or not Osama bin laden or what have you have access to thier own bomb? and lets not forget the ever-so-popular Saddam Hussien, if he stockpiled enough, he wouldn't hesitate to turn any country that opposed him into a smoking radioactive dustbowl. (worst case scenario) what is it with people and the attraction of power? is it just in our nature to relish the idea that we are in complete control of another human beings very existence?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
"It's also different in that the Axis of Evil as currently defined is a problem because they attack CIVILIAN targets, not military."
Thank god then that the good guys haven't bombed any civilian targets in this "war on terror and stuff".
Oh, hang on...
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I can feel my mind going, but...I'm going to have to agree with Omega so far as he says that a nuclear weapon is no more or less "evil" than any other kind of weapon. Fallout is not a given, after all.
There. Now I must go take a shower. In lava.
[ March 22, 2002, 22:44: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
