Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[betsy]

deleted

[bradco]

"Btw, how can it be in self-defense if you're doing the first strike?"

1. anticapatory self-defense (which is a different concept than pre-emptive self defense)

2. it is the first nuclear strike which is in retaliation, self defense, of a conventional strike

"Okay Brad, here's the scenario:

If intelligence gave vital info that the ENEMY is launching a nuclear attack in 24 hours.

What will you do?"

First of all why does my attack automatically have to involve nuclear weapons?? If I have this evidence I can use tactical weapons that are not nuclear to take out the oppositions nuclear facilities. Anyways, in this situation it really is lose-lose for both sides and I see it as very unrealistic. In any response both sides get wiped out. Assuming the other country has there weapons armed as I fire mine they will automatically fire theirs....If they were to attack Id respond by firing mine. It is a MAD concept but it works with state actors. In this example diplomacy and conflict resolution is the only option that doesnt result in my destruction so Id try that route. The only situation MAD doesnt work is with non-state actors. In such a situation there is nobody for me to use nuclear weapons against to stop the attack.

[betsy]

First of all why does my attack automatically have to involve nuclear weapons?? If I have this evidence I can use tactical weapons that are not nuclear to take out the oppositions nuclear facilities.

You do realize you've got a limited time. What if your tactical non-nuclear weapon fails?

[bradco]

First of all why does my attack automatically have to involve nuclear weapons?? If I have this evidence I can use tactical weapons that are not nuclear to take out the oppositions nuclear facilities.

You do realize you've got a limited time. What if your tactical non-nuclear weapon fails?

You do realize that any launching of full out nuclear strikes will precipitate the same reaction from the enemy in this case. I guess you can argue that they are 24 hours from developing their first nulcear capabilities. In this case a tactical strike to take out their nuclear facilities would work fine. You need to realize that launching ICBM's capable of carrying nuclearpayloads requires expensive and large facilities which when hit will be unable to launch an attack.

[betsy]

"I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative"

Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral.

Exactly.

That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war!

[betsy]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so thats a different story. In that war it was the US and coalition forces who were the aggressors, regardless if you agree with the ends of removing Saddam.

No, it isn't a different story. It is PART of the story!

Removing a dictator like Saddam was just a bonus in this part of the story!

9/11 woke the sleeping giant! It just so happened that the leader when it woke up is a guy who hates to be woken up in that manner! Remember the axis of evil? He is gunning to aim for all three...and if he'd had the time, he would have!

[bradco]

"I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative"

Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral.

Exactly.

That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war!

Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton. Although different definitons of morality exist some can be better defended than others. Interestingly enough criticisms of certain ways the Iraq war has been conducted were never countered with moral arguments from the other side, quite specificlly because there isnt a good moral argument for using indicscriminate weapons, carrying out reprisals against civilians, torturing combatants who dont possess information that is of utmost concern etc.

[betsy]

"I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative"

Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral.

Exactly.

That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war!

Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton.

I stand corrected. I failed to add, "...but that doesn't make it so. Universally, that is."

[bradco]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so thats a different story. In that war it was the US and coalition forces who were the aggressors, regardless if you agree with the ends of removing Saddam.

No, it isn't a different story. It is PART of the story!

Removing a dictator like Saddam was just a bonus in this part of the story!

9/11 woke the sleeping giant! It just so happened that the leader when it woke up is a guy who hates to be woken up in that manner! Remember the axis of evil? He is gunning to aim for all three...and if he'd had the time, he would have!

You failed to address any real connection between Saddam Hussien's Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

[bradco]

"I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative"

Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral.

Exactly.

That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war!

Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton.

I stand corrected. I failed to add, "...but that doesn't make it so. Universally, that is."

ok then, please provide a good moral argument why using indiscriminate weapons, carrying out reprisals against civilians and torturing combatants who dont possess information of a large scale imminent attack is necessary and acceptable

[betsy]

You failed to address any real connection between Saddam Hussien's Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

Because of 9/11, the US declared a war on terrorism. Anyone harboring, recruiting, training, breeding, funding, supplying terrorists with weapons, are included in that package.

[bradco]

You failed to address any real connection between Saddam Hussien's Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

Because of 9/11, the US declared a war on terrorism. Anyone harboring, recruiting, training, breeding, funding, supplying terrorists with weapons, are included in that package.

ok and Saddam fits this how? I have yet to see evidence that Saddam harboured, recruited, trained, bred, funded or supplied terrorists with weapons. Doing so would have been against his own interests of staying in power by not pissing off anyone in the west.

[betsy]

If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

You can't say for sure anymore than anyone could that NOT REMOVING Saddam will not allow for anymore spread of terrorism! For all you know, more terrorist attacks like 9/11 would've followed if the US did not react the way it did!

You know what most likely stopped any more serious attacks on the US after 9/11? The fear of Bush!

They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come! They didn't want to test him any farther....fearing he might do just that! Strike now and explain later!

What was surely happening though was...terrorists were becoming bolder in their attacks before 9/11!

[betsy]

ok and Saddam fits this how? I have yet to see evidence that Saddam harboured, recruited, trained, bred, funded or supplied terrorists with weapons. Doing so would have been against his own interests of staying in power by not pissing off anyone in the west.

Well I don't need to see anymore evidence! (although long way back I gave a link that stated Saddam was recruiting and paying the families of suicide bombers to help Palestinians against Israel).

Knowing that he'd done a mass massacre and attacked the kurds with chemical weapons is one good reason enough!

[bradco]

If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

You can't say for sure anymore than anyone could that NOT REMOVING Saddam will not allow for anymore spread of terrorism! For all you know, more terrorist attacks like 9/11 would've followed if the US did not react the way it did!

You know what most likely stopped any more serious attacks on the US after 9/11? The fear of Bush!

They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come! They didn't want to test him any farther....fearing he might do just that! Strike now and explain later!

What was surely happening though was...terrorists were becoming bolder in their attacks before 9/11!

Ok Iraq had not interests in terrorism, outside its borders, under Saddam. Now with no authority in that country and its future uncertain it is more possible that a regime will come into power like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan who harboured Al Qaida.

"They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come"

No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

[betsy]

You do realize that any launching of full out nuclear strikes will precipitate the same reaction from the enemy in this case. I guess you can argue that they are 24 hours from developing their first nulcear capabilities. In this case a tactical strike to take out their nuclear facilities would work fine. You need to realize that launching ICBM's capable of carrying nuclearpayloads requires expensive and large facilities which when hit will be unable to launch an attack.

Well, I just don't see the point why I would give my enemy the chance to do me harm later, if not now.

If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we.

If we're supposed to grapple with our conscience and feel "guilty" about anything...it should be grappling with guilt once we've realized we've just sentenced our future with the dire consequence of mass scale death....or near total annhilition....by placing the enemy's welfare above all else.

I'd feel guilty looking at our children and the future generation. I don't think I'd even be able to look them in the eye.

It's either us or them!

[bradco]

"Knowing that he'd done a mass massacre and attacked the kurds with chemical weapons is one good reason enough"

hmmm maybe they should have punished him for that when he did it 15 years ago! I dont mind knocking out Saddam I think it was a good ends but it was carried out poorly, justified for the wrong reasons and was not a war to provide security to the US. Furthermore there is no reason to be optimistic that Iraq wont fall into the hands of an even worse regime. Iraq is by no measure a success.

[bradco]

"If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we."

Cause we dont need to....its just the wrong choice of weapon. Nuclear weapons are designed to take out entire cities but in this case we need a bomb that will take out a small facility. Im not saying dont attack, Im just saying why do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

[betsy]

No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen?

They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war.

[betsy]

"If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we."

Cause we dont need to....its just the wrong choice of weapon. Nuclear weapons are designed to take out entire cities but in this case we need a bomb that will take out a small facility. Im not saying dont attack, Im just saying why do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

Well, at this point when we're scrambling to save our own neck....you think the consequences of whacking out entire cities would play so much importance?

What is the most important is whacking that nuclear facility for good...with no chance of missing!

It's either their civilians or our civilians! Their children or our own children!

Who is more important to you?

[betsy]

do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

We couldn't afford to miss.

If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized.

[betsy]

hmmm maybe they should have punished him for that when he did it 15 years ago! I dont mind knocking out Saddam I think it was a good ends but it was carried out poorly, justified for the wrong reasons and was not a war to provide security to the US. Furthermore there is no reason to be optimistic that Iraq wont fall into the hands of an even worse regime. Iraq is by no measure a success.

The UN should explain why Saddam got away with that, 15 years ago.

[bradco]

"If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we."

Cause we dont need to....its just the wrong choice of weapon. Nuclear weapons are designed to take out entire cities but in this case we need a bomb that will take out a small facility. Im not saying dont attack, Im just saying why do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

Well, at this point when we're scrambling to save our own neck....you think the consequences of whacking out entire cities would play so much importance?

What is the most important is whacking that nuclear facility for good...with no chance of missing!

It's either their civilians or our civilians! Their children or our own children!

Who is more important to you?

Luckily for the civilized world you are not in charge of defense. There is no logical reason to use a nuclear weapon to take out a small facility that other bombs could easily destroy. There are lots of reaons not to: the immorality of needlessly slaughtering civilians, the danger of legitmizing the use of nuclear weapons, supplying terrorist organizations with a powerful motivating and recruiting tool

[bradco]

No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen?

They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war.

You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks.

[bradco]

do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

We couldn't afford to miss.

If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized.

We dont need to use a weapon that will destroy a 300km radius to ensure we take out a small facility. We wont miss with a smaller bomb. The use of a nuclear weapon here is the biggest overkill possible.