Nukes part of terror responsegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread
Nukes part of terror response
Onkar Ghate America is at war. To win, we must destroy not just individual terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan, but the power of brutal, authoritarian governments to send out their armies of terrorists against us. Central among these is Iran, but the enemy includes Iraq, Syria, Sudan, the PLO and others.
We should remind ourselves that these dictatorial regimes are arming themselves with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons aimed at our destruction. We dare not wait for another massacre before we eliminate their ability to attack us.
Many are now wondering: Should we use nuclear wea-pons to destroy the enemy?
The worry behind the question is whether the U.S. government has the moral right to use its full military arsenal in waging war. To this question I can say, as a philosopher, that morality answers with an unequivocal yes.
The basic issue is that of self-defense. When men are initiating force against you in order to destroy you, you have the moral right to kill would-be murderers by any means possible. To think that one thereby descends to the moral level of one's attackers is as absurd as to think that a policeman descends to the level of Al Capone if he kills the gangster in a shootout.
If in waging war our government were to consider deaths in enemy countries as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of American citizens or soldiers, it would be violating its most basic function. It would no longer be an agent for our self-defense, but theirs.
What could be more morally obscene than 20,000 additional Americans killed in another attack on our cities because our government failed to bomb Iran, worried that Iranian casualties would be too high? Equally obscene would be to send soldiers to war and then have our government not do everything in its power to minimize their deaths.
Morally, the responsibility of the U.S. government is to destroy aggressors and minimize U.S. casualties. If our military decides in this war, as in World War II, it needs nuclear weapons, so be it.
But what of the "innocent" civilians in enemy states that could be killed?
Many civilians in those states hate us and actively support, materially and spiritually, their tyrannical regimes. They are not innocents. As we drop our bombs, should we worry about the lives of Palestinians who celebrated by dancing in the streets on Sept. 11?
Other civilians in enemy states are passive, unthinking followers. Their economic production, however meager, supports their terrorist governments and so they are in part responsible for the continued power of our aggressors. They too are not innocent -- and their deaths may be unavoidable in order for America to defend itself.
With full moral certainty we must urge our government to defend our lives, even if that requires nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands of deaths in terrorist countries.
-- Martin Thompson (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 01, 2001
Makes sense to me
-- Steve McClendon (email@example.com), October 01, 2001.
Certainly you don't think the US gvt is as dumb as the authors of this article? What would the US have said had the Russians thretened to use nukes against chechnya? cheered them on?
And last i checked, Iran was not a friend of the Taliban, and US was soliciting Iran's help to behead the monster that the US created: Bin Laden: Made by CIA, wanted by FBI.
The US finds itself in a tough spot, first it has signed agreements to the effect that it will never be the first to use nukes (even against another armed with nukes), now it is being goaded by some idiot armed with a keyboard to use nukes against knife wielding terrorists?
-- jim (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 01, 2001.
"To think that one thereby descends to the moral level of one's attackers is as absurd as to think that a policeman descends to the level of Al Capone if he kills the gangster in a shootout."
"If our military decides in this war, as in World War II, it needs nuclear weapons, so be it."
"Other civilians in enemy states are passive, unthinking followers. Their economic production, however meager, supports their terrorist governments and so they are in part responsible for the continued power of our aggressors. They too are not innocent -- and their deaths may be unavoidable in order for America to defend itself."
So this author thinks that we have a right to destroy or kill at will, thousands of plain people, just because they happen to hold foreign passports and live in other parts of the world and love their countries? That they should be able to tolerate what we obviously can't? That we have the god-given right to police and dominate the world? Shower the planet with nuclear weapons, so be it, as a revenge for the deaths of 6000 people?
Where is the difference here to fanatics of other belief systems? Does this author believe that our "truth", beliefs, morality is by definition superior to theirs, and therefore, the same actions are permissible if they are committed by the US? Or as the Romans said: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi?
As one can easily observe, in this type of climate, anyone who dares to even mention the complexity of the present situation is a traitor. God protect us from an insane government that thinks like the author of this article.
-- Swissrose (email@example.com), October 02, 2001.