War, Nuclear Weapons and "Innocents"

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | September 22, 2001 | Onkar Ghate

[beavus]

This is a well-reasoned article about why it is immoral to hesitate in self-defense because of concerns for collateral damage.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Oh, is that what it is? Let me read it then. It's so unusual to get anything well reasoned out of the Ayn Rand. Maybe her institute does a better job?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Does it all follow from "a = a"?

[gcruse]

Nukes? Against a non-nuke enemy? Nope. Fuel-air explosives? Napalm? You bet your ass.

[beavus]

Maybe her institute does a better job?

Why not read it and find out? You can read can't you?

[beavus]

Nukes? Against a non-nuke enemy? Nope. Fuel-air explosives? Napalm? You bet your ass.

It is the US government's purpose to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to defend American's lives. If in the rational pursuit of that end nuclear weapons can serve a role, then they should be used.

[Aedammair]

That was really funny, mostly because it's true. Have you ever read Ayn's "We the Living"? Talk about tripe!!!!!

[Senator Pardek]

To win this war, we must not let an immoral concern with "innocents" weaken our resolve. We must have the profound moral conviction that we have the right to exist.

Right on target. Let's hope those who are ruled by emotion ("What about the children??? Anerica is evil, too.") are shouted down at this grave moment in history.

[beavus]

That was really funny, mostly because it's true. Have you ever read Ayn's "We the Living"? Talk about tripe!!!!!

All very true, trite, and irrelevent. Does anyone have an opinion on the role of "collateral damage" when making decisions about waging war?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Hold on. It's on my "to do" list.

[gcruse]

 If in the rational pursuit
of that end nuclear weapons can
serve a role, then they should be used.

Whatever that means.  Without
nukes being used by the other side,
we won't do it.

[beavus]

Without nukes being used by the other side, we won't do it.

Why not?

[sinkspur]

We don't need to use nuclear weapons.

Bombing won't do much good in some of these countries. But if we do bomb, the fuel/air and cluster bombs will make those on the receiving end WISH we'd used nukes!

[Neets]

Right on target. Let's hope those who are ruled by emotion ("What about the children??? America is evil, too.") are shouted down at this grave moment in history. <

And those who are ruled by emotion and who think America is evil need to remember these words from the President the other night.

"And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

[gcruse]

Sinkspur says it well.

[Aedammair]

I have an opinion but so what! Without the kind of knowledge that allows one to say for this many innocent casualties this is our gain, my opinion is worthless. I'm not schooled in the arts/science of war.

One thing I believe to be true is that a defending nation's karma is not put on hold if collateral damage is excessive. Killing millions of innocent farmers and peasants will only not matter if one has silenced their conscience. But again, war is a beast that I know demands respect sometimes, but I do not have the slightest idea on the best way to wage it.

[beavus]

It sounds like you are saying that there are strategic, not moral, reasons for not using nuclear weapons. Do I understand you correctly?

[beavus]

Without the kind of knowledge that allows one to say for this many innocent casualties this is our gain, my opinion is worthless.

Fair enough. You don't feel knowledgable enough to offer an opinion, so you would neither endorse nor criticise any amount of force that the US would use, no matter how many innocent non-Americans were killed.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

OK. I got to the point where the author says "To this question I can say, as a philosopher, that morality answers with an unequivocal `Yes.' ". Sounds like philosophy is sort of like engineering. Just like you can go to any trained engineer and say "How much weight will this structure bear?" and get a reliable answer, you can go to any trained philosopher and say "Is it OK to use nukes even if innocents will die?" and get a reliable answer. Hmmm ... Let me think about that analogy for a minute ....

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I don't know ... maybe it's a bad analogy? But mabye that's not the "well reasoned" part of the article? OK, I'll keep reading ...