Do Nuclear Weapons Deter?
Suppose that Iran got a nuclear bomb. Would it be of any use to it? Let's say the US attacks Iran and kills half of its population. Iran decides to retaliate by nuking Israel and destroying half of its population. What happens next? Israel responds with a nuclear strike eliminating the rest of Iran. Hence the Iranian strike was both immoral (for millions of innocent Israelis are murdered) and irrational, because not only did the Iranian government get blood on its hands, but the entire Iran was wiped out rather than merely 1/2 of it.
Similarly, suppose that during the Cold War the Russians nuked the New York City. Would it be reasonable for Americans to retaliate, wiping out Moscow? First, it would clearly be immoral: to the death toll of 8 million innocent New Yorkers the US would add 5 million (or however many) innocent Muscovites. Second, it would invite further attack on the part of the Russians who would after the destruction of Moscow annihilate, say, Chicago. If Americans replied by laying waste to Leningrad, the Russians would get madder still and obliterate Los Angeles. And so it would go until the entire human civilization would be gone. The purpose of war, which has traditionally been to conquer and rule, is defeated. If all is destroyed, what's there left to rule? Empty ruins?
Suppose further that the two countries exchanging nuclear blows are geographically next to each other. Then the secondary effects of a nuclear attack (radiation, etc.) by any country will affect that country, as well. That is an additional reason for a victimized nation not to act in response to a nuclear attack by a neighbor state.
Proceeding from the next-to-last strike, it is clear that any retaliation makes neither moral nor self-interested sense. Hence, if these simple considerations are true, the US can attack Iran with nuclear weapons and be fairly sure that there will be no retaliation. Similarly, Iran can nuke Israel and hold, correctly, that the latter is unlikely to respond in kind.
It follows that nukes do not deter first nuclear strikes. Do they deter attacks with conventional weapons? At first glance it seems unlikely, because nukes are so powerful that they cannot be pinpointed against the attacker on a battleground and will harm their possessor, as well, when detonated. But their deterrent value could still lie in the threat to destroy the cities and the economy of the offender country that uses conventional weapons. Suppose that the Lebanese had got the bomb. Israel could no longer treat them like dirt, for they could in principle threaten to blow up Jerusalem, for which act, as has been suggested, it would make no sense for Israel to retaliate in kind.
It is true that such a response by Lebanon would be disproportionate if triggered and therefore morally wrong, but it would serve to deter aggression nonetheless. To avoid misunderstanding, I am arguing that conventional but not nuclear attacks can be deterred by a nation's becoming nuclear. The reason is that the former kind of attack aims at control, while the latter, at pure destruction. To destroy as a response to a destructive act makes no sense, especially if there is any kind of trade going on between the belligerents, and will to boot snowball out of control. But wiping out the enemy's women and children will be a sufficient threat to prevent any state from challenging the existing regime of a foreign nation through non-nuclear means.
The question then, is this deterring function a sufficient good such that we should encourage every country to get WMDs? Instead of fighting with Iran over its (non-existent) nukes, should we subsidize their building? (Or, better, should we simply give them some of our missiles?) I say no, because of the collectivist nature of nuclear attacks. Instead of seeing the world in terms of governments fighting for supremacy, we should adopt radical individualism and, as its ultimate manifestation, market anarchism, under which no private entity (for there will be no governments as such) will be permitted to own WMDs, and such possession will be treated as a tort or a crime.
So, nukes can deter a foreign government from trying to overthrow the government of another country, such as the US overthrowing the Iranian state. But under anarcho-capitalism the ownership of such weapons will not only be illegal but pointless, as well. Will the city of Kent, Ohio need them to protect itself against the encroachments of the city of Akron, Ohio? If it weren't for the federal government and its massive stock of WMDs, would we all be speaking Akronese now? But then the only purpose of nuclear weapons, viz., to deter conventional attacks, is voided under anarchism or even a regime in which the biggest government is that of a city-state. As preparation for this glorious state of affairs, achieved in part through abolition of the US federal government, there should be a unilateral disarmament of all WMDs.
Comments (34)
Whether or not a country will respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons depends primarily on the value that the country places upon human life and, if applicable, their religious faith. According to the following article, gender also plays a role.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article793108.ece
Published: September 1, 2007 12:33 AM
A nuclear weapon could easily be used against conventional military forces. Any force of sufficient size to actually threaten the United States would be quite large, and therefore able to be hit with a tactical nuke. No invading surface fleet would stand a chance (I've always wondered why the USA needs a standing army of any significant size for this reason). Not all nukes are city-destroying weapons.
If the purpose of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, then it does not follow that they must always be used in retaliation. If their purpose is simply to deter, then technically they have already failed in their duty if the United States were to be attacked. Now you may not trust the United States government with its nuclear weapons, and I certainly wouldn't blame you for your lack of trust. But a country (meaning the people inside of it, not the government per se) has the right to defend itself. I would agree that nuking entire cities is not an act of defense, but that does not mean all nuclear weapons should be disarmed. Total nuclear disarmament could be disastrous.
I seriously doubt protection agencies armed with nuclear weapons under market anarchism would care if someone sued them. After all, they are some of the few people with nukes. Who is going to enforce the tort law? Might as well pass a non-binding resolution against North Korea's ownership of Nuclear weapons in the UN. They just don't care.
Published: September 1, 2007 12:40 AM
Good point G, how would a Libertarian society view privately owned nukes and the 2nd Amendment?
Published: September 1, 2007 12:52 AM
I would imagine that would depend on the society. Any market anarchist society is going to have some set of uniform laws which property owners will agree to. Some won't, of course, but most within a given culture probably will. Economics of scale means its easier and cheaper to enforce a common set of laws over a large amount of territory than it is to bother with different laws for many small properties.
Most sane people do not want to live next to untrustworthy people armed with nukes, so they would join societies which disallow the ownership of such weapons. I'd imagine the nuclear-armed untrustworthy sorts would be dealt with in similar manners to how they are now (trade sanctions and the like). I could certainly see market anarchistic societies disallowing personal firearms as well.
I would imagine the use of non-retaliatory force in defense agencies would be under direct democratic control (i.e., the customers vote). That of course that would depend on agency, but I can't think of any other decent way of doing it really.
One thing that always gets me is how people equate market anarchism with libertarianism. Market anarchism can certainly support libertarianism better than other sorts of societies, but it in and of itself does not make a society libertarian. I believe Mises was right when he said nations ultimately get what their population wants. Market anarchism would certainly help, as privately-owned agencies (providing services which used to be provided by government) would not bankrupt themselves as they expand. The true costs of war and welfare would be apparent, and secession would be much easier. All those things help, but do not in and of themselves make a society libertarian.
Published: September 1, 2007 1:10 AM
North Korea (oops the People's Republic of Korea, my bad) and Pakistan showed the way to the world. Both were able to use their newly acquired (and often questionably reliable) nuclear power to keep their powerful enemies at bay.
In case of North Korea a lot of menacing talks and a failed nuclear test were enough to force the US, China and Japan to provide more badly needed supplies (oil, foodstuff etc) to keep the ailing regime on the saddle.
In case of Pakistan it was seen a desperate measure to stave off the immense superiority of the Indian Army.
It is often forgotten that Iran's nuclear program was started by the Shah in 1974-75, with US, German and Israeli assistance. The final goal was a nuclear armed Iran to act as the Middle East policeman, in accord with the US and Israel, of course.
They built some small test reactors and trained a cadre of engineers and physicists in the best US and European establishments. The Revolution of 1979 severed these links but the ayatollahs have always tried to keep the program alive. After the USSR collapsed they were able to purchase some off the shelf nuclear reactors but the Russians kept their secrets well guarded. The hundreds of Russian technicians and engineers working on the Iranian reactors are probably a main factor in keeping the US and Israel from launching a "pre-emptive" strike against these infrastructures.
Then came the "Pakistani Connection" and Iran was able to purchase technology from the so called rogue states. Nuclear technology was obtained both directly and indirectly from Pakistan (who in turn acquired it through incredible US and European negligence or benevolence) and long range missiles designs and prototypes were obtained from North Korea.
Iran is probably a few years away from building a working nuclear device but if really hard pressed by the US and their allies they can always try to rush it (as the North Koreans did) or buy a working prototype from the Pakistanis (though it would be a risk, since nuclear fissile material is easily traced to the enrichment plant).
Then expect the whole Middle east to go up in flames.
Published: September 1, 2007 5:11 AM
G pretty much said everything I would have. I doubt many would agree to have firearms disallowed. Nuclear weapons are more contentious though, so probably would be disallowed in most areas. It would be very easy for PDAs to collectively refrain from the use of nukes, and treat any agency that agrees to but doesn't as criminal - and I see no reason why other PDAs could not exact compensation from PDAs that do use nukes. I imagine most PDAs will also be cooperatively owned firms.
Published: September 1, 2007 7:12 AM
"Similarly, suppose that during the Cold War the Russians nuked the New York City. Would it be reasonable for Americans to retaliate, wiping out Moscow?"
The author's conclusions are false because his assumptions and based on outdated nuclear technology and strategy. In the early days of atomic bombs, missiles were so inaccurate that the militaries had no choice but to aim for very large targets such as cities. In the first use of atomic bombs, the US didn't need missiles since we had air superiority. (Although I often wonder why the US didn't bomb the concentration of Japanese troops on the south of Japan instead of bombing cities). Today, nuclear weapons are much smaller because the missiles are very accurate. We even have tactical nukes that can take out precise targets. My point is that throughout most of the cold war, neither the US nor the USSR would have lobbed a single nuclear bomb at a city and sat back waiting for a response. Had either one attacked first, the attack would have been massive and aimed at military targets, mostly missile silos, a lot of which were in cow pastures in Nebraska. It wouldn't make much sense to bomb a city and leave the missiles aimed at you unscathed. Both sides assumed that if the other side attacked first, that it would be a massive attack designed to take out the capability to respond at all. But both sides also assumed that the other side couldn't take out every missile site and so had a retaliatory strike in mind.
"It follows that nukes do not deter first nuclear strikes."
Not at all. In fact, after the fall of the USSR we learned that the Soviets had every intension of launching a first strike but they feared our ability to retaliate. The Soviets were fairly confident they could take out all of our ground based missiles and stop air strikes. What they couldn't figure into the equation was our nuclear-armed subs, which they couldn't track and we had a lot of them. Deterrence did work with the USSR.
"It is true that such a response by Lebanon would be disproportionate if triggered and therefore morally wrong..."
That's nonsense. While you shouldn't target nomcombatants, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response in war. If a country finds itself under attack from another country, it has the moral obligation to do everything in its power to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. That means killing as many of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible. It also has the moral obligation to its soldiers to prevent as many as possible from being killed.
The idea of "proportional response" has been responsible for the fiascos in the Korean, Vietnam and current Iraqi wars. The idea that I can kill only as many soldiers as you kill guarantees that conflicts will last forever because their can be no victor. Armies achieve victory by killing far more of the enemy than the enemy kills of them. Victory demands disproportionate response.
"Instead of fighting with Iran over its (non-existent) nukes, should we subsidize their building? (Or, better, should we simply give them some of our missiles?)"
Now you're beginning to make some sense. The international nuclear arms situation is not much different in principle than that of gun control in the US. People with guns offer an enormous deterrent to criminals, why should it be different with nations?
"Instead of seeing the world in terms of governments fighting for supremacy, we should adopt radical individualism and, as its ultimate manifestation, market anarchism, under which no private entity (for there will be no governments as such) will be permitted to own WMDs, and such possession will be treated as a tort or a crime."
Now you enter the realm of fantasy. This answer has nothing at all to do with reality today or in the distant future. There will always be at least one state in existence and it will probably have nuclear weapons. So why fantasize about an anarchist world? Besides, even in arnarchism, how are you going to get tens of thousands of independent judges to declare WMD's illegal when they are private property? If you do, you're on your way to destroying all property rights.
Published: September 1, 2007 9:37 AM
But what I am saying is that even if they did attack cities, it would be absurd for the victim to retaliate in kind. In the case of Russia and the US, the countries were so huge (and you also point to the nuclear submarines) that it was impossible for either country to "take out the capability to respond at all."
Even if half the US (Russia) was destroyed in a "massive" first strike, it wouldn't be sensible to destroy half of Russia (US) in response.
Do you have evidence of that? At any rate, if they did, then they did not (thankfully) pay heed to my arguments.
So, targeting noncombatants, e.g., to break the spirits of the soldiers, would be disproportionate, would it not? You should (re)read, for example, Rothbard's "The Anatomy of the State" to grasp that "us" vs. "them" or "our soldiers" vs. "their soldiers" is just so much nationalistic nonsense.
In other words, the reason why we lost in all these countries was that we were not brutal enough, or that our resolve to kill, kill, kill was not strong enough, is that it?
There is a movie called Independence Day, in which evil aliens attack the world. There is a bit of dialog in it which goes like this:
President: What do you want us to do?
Captured Alien: Die. Die.
For many decades now we, Americans, have been the evil aliens to other countries we attacked.
Because it represents the limiting case of a just and efficient society. Whether it is practicable, I am not entirely sure, but neither am I sure that it is not practicable. If life without the feds is possible, why not life without the state of Ohio or Alabama?
Published: September 1, 2007 11:36 AM
What an awful article. Dmitry, it doesn't appear to me that you know a thing about military or political behavior, you're constructing sky-castles in your head with no empirical data. We did live through a period of hostile powers with lots of nukes, and they didn't attack each other. More and more countries have nukes now and none have attacked each other.
Published: September 1, 2007 1:51 PM
So, you are saying that nuclear weapons have, in the real world, actually deterred nuclear attacks. But I say that this has been precisely because people still think in terms of nation-states "fighting for supremacy," as I write, in which their governments are "us" and "we" are their governments. Nukes can plausibly deter nuclear attacks (against which possibility I argue) only if the people are identified with their states, such that if nation-person A hits nation-person B with a hammer and breaks some of its bones, nation B can reasonably retaliate by hitting nation A with a club and break some of its bones, e.g., as punishment or self-defense. But if we consider the state as an autonomous organization, different from and hostile both to foreign people and to "its own" people, then we see that retaliating makes no sense either to the people who will die en masse on both sides, or even to the governments who will lose taxpayers and the revenue from trade.
In a way, until there exist no nukes in anyone's hands, we are lucky to have statists around who think that the people and the state have identical interests. In other words, nuclear war can be deterred either through (1) widepread possession of nuclear weapons and commonly-held statist ideology, or (2) no nuclear weapons and severe punishments for possessing them and commonly-held libertarian ideology. But nukes and libertarianism are incompatible with each other.
Published: September 1, 2007 6:53 PM
"Similarly, suppose that during the Cold War the Russians nuked the New York City. Would it be reasonable for Americans to retaliate, wiping out Moscow? First, it would clearly be immoral: to the death toll of 8 million innocent New Yorkers the US would add 5 million (or however many) innocent Muscovites."
No, the US would add 5 million (or however many) *guilty* Muscovites.
Unless you are a moral relativist, it makes all the difference.
Robert
Published: September 1, 2007 7:07 PM
And why are these Muscovites guilty of what their regime does, Robert?
Published: September 1, 2007 7:15 PM
Nukes can act as a deterrent against nuclear attack if the defender can convince the agressor that it will act irrationally if attacked, by launching a nuclear retaliation regardless of the consequences. If the agressor believes there is a significant chance of this then they may be deterred. If the defending state is asked if it will act irrationally, it must pledge that it will, otherwise as Dmitry article shows, it has effectively admitted there is no deterrent.
Published: September 1, 2007 8:52 PM
I want to say that retaliation is not entirely pointless for "nation-persons," because each blow to the "social body," though painful, is not lethal, and the state may take a lot of punishment before it is exhausted; and also because of the "we'll show them" attitude that goes along nicely with collectivism. Now we may point out that this reasoning shows that even though retaliation is not "off the table" in the case of nation-persons, that might still not deter a series of mutual nuclear strikes. And maybe that's so. Then the situation for statism is hopeless, and my point (1) is wrong. And as for the explanation for the absence of nuclear war for what? 70 years despite the existence of many nuclear nations, well, maybe we can chalk it up to the libertarianism of a sufficient number of people in this particular matter, Robert certainly not included, to make a difference in restraining the states.
Conor, that was a nice rendition of my main point.
Published: September 1, 2007 10:21 PM
And as for the explanation for the absence of nuclear war for what? 70 years despite the existence of many nuclear nations, well, maybe we can chalk it up to the libertarianism of a sufficient number of people in this particular matter, Robert certainly not included, to make a difference in restraining the states.
You haven't even established a correlation, and you're already claiming causation? Libertarians are a tiny minority that have failed in all their political efforts, as evidences by the ever increasing size and intrusiveness of the State. Perhaps you can point to Milton Friedman as an exception, but that's really about it.
By the way, I am in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, as well as many other countries even though I consider myself pro-Zionist. An armed society of states is a polite society of states.
Published: September 2, 2007 1:41 PM
TGGP ("Thank God for Government Power"?), I mean, of course, libertarian leanings among the populace, especially in America, as well as the obvious fact that you don't have to be a libertarian to want to prevent a nuclear war.
Published: September 2, 2007 9:28 PM
"Thank God for Government Power"?
I'm neither a statist nor a theist. Just because I disagree with you or others here on certain issues doesn't mean I'm not a libertarian.
I mean, of course, libertarian leanings among the populace, especially in America
Perhaps America was known for its libertarian leanings, but then there are also the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea. Not only were the populaces in many of those countries quite unlibertarian, but they were also undemocratic enough that the the opinions of the populace mattered little.
the obvious fact that you don't have to be a libertarian to want to prevent a nuclear war.
I believe Mutually Assured Destruction rested on that fact.
Published: September 2, 2007 10:13 PM
And why are these Muscovites guilty of what their regime does, Robert?
I don't support Robert in this, but one possible answer would be: because they pay the taxes and otherwise support the regime, without which support the regime could not exist. Thus all Americans (and foreigners living in America) are responsible for the acts of the American regime, all Russians for the Russian regime, etc. This is the argument put forth by al Qaida for the attack against the WTC: the financial people in there were responsible for supporting the regime which was their true target, and therefore morally culpable. The only way, according to Robert (and bin Ladin), to be "innocent" is to be at war - actual war, involving gunfire, not merely intellectually - with the controlling regime.
There's some truth in that, even.
Published: September 3, 2007 12:16 AM
Nukes can act as a deterrent against nuclear attack if the defender can convince the agressor that it will act irrationally if attacked, by launching a nuclear retaliation regardless of the consequences
Cue Dr. Strangelove.
Published: September 3, 2007 12:17 AM
Peter, I've heard the argument and I think it's weak. If most Americans (citizens of X country) voluntarily paid taxes (a contradictory notion, but assume it were so), I'd say alright. But they don't, and face harsh penalties for not doing so. So I don't think they share any degree of culpability, unless they lobby for the State. Politicians, on the other hand, are direct instruments of the State. Some libertarians even do take the view that all taxpayers are to an extent morally guilty individuals. I don't share the view.
Published: September 3, 2007 7:23 AM
I'd like to ask a question. To simplify matters, I'm going to keep the names of specific countries out of this.
If Country A stages an unprovoked attack against Country B, wouldn't it stand to reason that Country B has the right to respond?
Let's say the answer is yes. I would also recommend, however, that one should keep the lines of communication open in the event an opportunity for a diplomatic solution might present itself.
Now if Country A were to use conventional weapons, it would be best for Country B to respond in kind; but if Country A were to make the abhorrent decision to use nuclear devices and Country B either did not respond in kind or did not respond at all, wouldn't that encourage Country A to continue its attack?
I was under the impression that libertarians are allowed to respond to an unprovoked attack. Personal experience has taught me that when left unchecked, aggression tends to escalate.
Published: September 3, 2007 9:35 AM
The issue of 'ordinary private citizens' being allowed to own nukes is a silly one.
For one thing, OF COURSE they would be allowed to own them, all other considerations aside. A genuine libertarian is not permitted to resort to aggression to 'disallow' something he dislikes, even a scary dangerous nuke in the neighbor's basement, unless it can be found to constitute a willful THREAT of aggression (versus merely the possibility of accident).
Of course voluntarism allows infinite ways to put non-aggressive pressure on parties whose actions are disliked. Given these pressures, only a total a**hole (one who incidentally has the resources to survive prolonged sanctions, not to mention money to blow purchasing and maintaining a functioning nuclear weapon in the first place) would defiantly, and wastefully, exercise his property rights to their extreme limits and keep a nuclear weapon in the local suburbs.
The location of any such powerful and dangerous device would be widely publicized, and carefully monitored by security agencies, as is done today. So even if this wealthy madman were to exist, as we must allow, he would be intently scrutinized by security agencies, certainly with plans in place to thwart any attempt to detonate the device.
Moving away from a dangerous place is also always an option, just as it is for people living in earthquake, flood, tornado, forest fire, and other disaster zones.
Finally, nonconsenting property owners would certainly limit the mobility of these devices.
There are thousands of libertarian approaches which require NO aggression, both to prevent such extreme situations from arising in the first place, and to resolve them when they do arise.
Published: September 3, 2007 12:57 PM
IMHO,
Respond? Yes, certainly. But, respond against whom? Decision-makers or civilians?
Published: September 3, 2007 1:30 PM
The problem IMHO is you're still using the language of countries, and not individuals. Would it be fair for innocents to retaliate against aggressors? For sure. However, An aggressor country may be full of innocents, who should not be punished for their central authority's malfeasance.
Is it just me or are there fewer "recent comments" on display? Setting it to 30 comments is optimal IMO.
Published: September 3, 2007 7:13 PM
Otto and Anthony,
I'm not being argumentative here...just trying to understand. In essence, what you are saying is that, should Nation A attack Nation B, then the civilians of Nation B should sacrifice themselves to avoid the killing of innocents.
What if the citizens (innocents) of Nation A were responsible for putting the politicians who conducted the attack into office? What if the citizens were expressing hostile sentiments against Nation B? What options are available to the citizens of Nation B so that they might protect themselves?
Published: September 3, 2007 9:47 PM
Yes, but not only for the sake of this moral aspect but also in order to avoid escalation. To the argument that this leaves Nation B open to yet another attack and ultimately complete destruction, I would reply that yes, that is indeed so, but the alternative is for both nations to be wiped out, which is even worse.
The citizens of A may be more or less guilty for permitting their government to attack B with a nuclear weapon. But regardless of their complicity, they have only limited liability with respect to their government's actions. The worst that they should be able to suffer is having that government and its military properties (the result of their tax contributions) destroyed. They themselves and their own private properties are off limits as non-combatants. So are the non-military properties of the government that initiated the attack (e.g., highways). The discrimination could certainly get tricky, but it must be performed as accurately as possible by Nation B in its attempts to defend itself.
Published: September 3, 2007 10:31 PM
Everyone seems to be assuming that politicians are emotionless calculating machines, coming up with precisely-tailored degrees of guilt for each problem. But wars are inspired by passions and emotions, and logic is usually an unwanted guest. Quite a few wars, like gang battles over turf, are not coolly-reasoned exercises, but are clashes of egos. If my cities were being destroyed by another country's bombs, my emotional reaction would be to send them some bombs of my own!!! The logic of the innocence of the civilians wouldn't matter.
As for an anarchist owning A-bombs of your own, why would you bother? They're expensive to build and buy, and how are you going to deliver them to your enemy? What would be wrong with an ordinary bomb? Or a gas attack?
Published: September 4, 2007 1:55 AM
IMHO, look at it this way: if you hire someone to protect you, you've done nothing wrong. If you hire an assassin to kill someone, clearly you are guilty. Innocent citizens would be those voting in a politician who is most unlikely to initiate aggressive wars (in the domain of foreign policy, at least), or who cast a blank vote in the absence of a good alternative. Dmitry answers your other questions well I believe.
Published: September 4, 2007 7:26 AM
Dmitry:"But what I am saying is that even if they did attack cities, it would be absurd for the victim to retaliate in kind. In the case of Russia and the US, the countries were so huge (and you also point to the nuclear submarines) that it was impossible for either country to "take out the capability to respond at all."
I have to agree that if the USSR attacked a US city, it would be futile and immoral to respond in kind, but it would not be futile to respond by attacking their military capability. I think the US did have sufficient firepower to take out the USSR's military capability at the time.
Dmitry: "Do you have evidence of that?"
I have read so many books and articles on the fall of the USSR and the intelligence revealed since then that I can't tell you which particular ones to look at, but the evidence is there is you're interested in digging.
Dmitry: "So, targeting noncombatants, e.g., to break the spirits of the soldiers, would be disproportionate, would it not?"
Yes, deliberately targeting civilians is always wrong. But in every war the US has fought isnce WWI, the enemy has deliberately placed military targets in civilian areas because they know of our strong desire to avoid civilian casualties. In those cases, we have two choices: 1) surrender or 2) bomb the military targets and accept the civilian casualties.
Dmitry: "In other words, the reason why we lost in all these countries was that we were not brutal enough, or that our resolve to kill, kill, kill was not strong enough, is that it?"
Exactly. If you don't kill enough of the enemy and destroy his capability to fight, he'll keep fighting. It's kind of obvious, isn't it? That's what war is all about. Maybe if more people understood that, they would be less willing to go to war. Beginning with Korea, Americans have had the idea that we don't have to actually kill anybody, just show up with the Marines and the other side will surrender when they see that war with us is hopeless. Unfortunately, that has failed in every war since WWII.
Take Vietnam, for example. After years of war, the North had no intension of ending its invasion of the South until Nixon bombed them into the stone age in the early 1970's. Nixon's bombings forced the NV to the Paris negotiations where they agreed to withdraw. Then the US began withdrawing troops. Two years later, when the NV saw that the US didn't have the troops, or the will, to continue fighting, they broke the treaty and invaded the South, being pretty certain that the US would not continue bombing the North.
Dmitry: "Nukes can plausibly deter nuclear attacks (against which possibility I argue) only if the people are identified with their states..."
If all states were identical, you're argument would make sense. But some of us see minor differences between the old USSR and the US, and between the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the US, and the Taliban and the US. It's these minor (insignificant to you, I'm sure) differences that cause us to fight. The US is far from ideal, but some of us prefer it by a long shot to living under communism or Islamic rule. So, sadly for you, we'll keep fighting.
Published: September 4, 2007 12:44 PM
Dmitry: "Even if half the US (Russia) was destroyed in a "massive" first strike, it wouldn't be sensible to destroy half of Russia (US) in response."
I have another thought on this. If Russia suddenly nuked NYC, our response would depend on what we could determine the purpose of the Russian attack was. If it was a mistake, we could demand restitution. If it was a deliberate attack just to kill a bunch of people, we could demand justice by having those responsible extradited and put on trial for murder. If Russia refused to extradite the criminals, we could go after them as we did in Afghanistan. But neither of those sound plausible. More than likely, a strike like that from another nation would have a goal, such as forcing the US to give up some territory or taking over the US. In that case, we can either surrender to their demands, or try to take out their military. If we decide to fight, the response cannot be proportional. We should do everything in our power to completely destroy their military capability so that they will never try an attack again. But there is still the matter of justice. The governmental and military leadership who ordered the attack still need to stand trial for the deaths of millions. Without a total surrender of the enemy, justice will never take place.
Hoppe and Rothbard have criticized the total war that the US waged against Japan and Germany during WWII as unecessarily brutal. But without demanding total, unconditional surrender of both, we could never have tried their leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. They would have been responsible for the deaths of millions and escaped without so much as a slap on the wrist. In other words, they would have benefited greatly from launching wars.
One way to prevent wars is to ensure that the political/military leadership of a nation understands that if they start a war, and lose, they will be tried for crimes. This war the first Pres Bush's mistake with Saddam Hussein. Having committed mass murder and theft with his invasion of Kuwait, Bush let him go free and retain his dictatorship; in other words, Bush rewarded Hussein for launching the war. As a result, Hussein solidified his power, and increased his brutality in Iraq.
Published: September 4, 2007 3:14 PM
But as I argue, nuclear weapons deter conventional attacks, so we cannot take out their military, lest they start nuking one US city after another in response to an invasion. We have to surrender. It seems perverse at first glance, but that's what nukes do. They make normal self-defense impossible.
I have no problem with that if it is doable.
Yet in demanding total, unconditional surrender we committed war crimes and crimes against humanity ourselves.
Who put Bush in charge of trying Saddam? You would need to advocate some kind of a world court in which some authority could pronounce sentences over the rulers of countries (including the US) and enforce the judgments through a war with the condemned regime. I am not sure that such a setup would be an appropriate means to world peace.
Or would you rather keep the US as the world's self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner?
It is best to let the mass murdering rulers go free and be punished in the next life by the Judge of all things, rather than go to war with a whole country just in order to get the top son of a bitch. It's not worth it.
Published: September 4, 2007 3:48 PM
Dmitry: "You would need to advocate some kind of a world court in which some authority could pronounce sentences over the rulers of countries..."
The UN tried Hussein before both gulf wars with as much evidence as it could gather without Hussein's cooperation. In both, the US invasion was the UN's verdict.
Dmity: "It is best to let the mass murdering rulers go free and be punished in the next life by the Judge of all things, rather than go to war with a whole country just in order to get the top son of a bitch. It's not worth it."
I'm glad you believe in an ultimate judge, but my religion teaches that God has delegated to us the job of trying and executing criminals in this life, whether petty ones or rulers who commit mass murder. If we let them go free, we not only encourage more of the same, but fail at our divinely appointed responsibility.
Published: September 4, 2007 4:30 PM
In spite of my post above, I do not think the US is responsible for overthrowing every dictator in the world. Catholics have a principle that says roughly that the people closest to the situation bear the greatest responsibility and burden for it. Protestants have something similar called boundaries which says that everyone is not responsible for everything; every individual is responsible for his own welfare and decisions first and I'm not obligated to fix your bad decisions. My responsibilities for your actions have boundaries.
Were these principles applied to international relations, they might have kept us out of unnecessary wars. For example, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Kuwaiti citizens had the initial responsibility to do something about it. Obviously they couldn't do much. But Kuwait was a member of the Arab League, which included Iraq and its neighbors. The Arab League bore the next level of responsibility. We should have left the decision as to what to do about Kuwait to the Arab League. Egypt's military (built by the US)with Saudi money could easily have run Hussein out of Kuwait. Since the League didn't want to do anything about it, we should have stayed out of the situation. Being a good neighbor often involves minding your own business, which the US rarely does.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, the European Union bore the greatest responsibility for acting to prevent mass murder. Since it decided not to do anything, again, we should have stayed out of it.
President Reagan followed that policy in Afghanistan by sending hardware to the freedom fighters and not sending troops. The Afghans were willing to fight the Soviets and didn't need our troops, just some help with weapons. Had we followed that policy in Korea and Vietnam, we would have sent supplies to the South, but not troops. If the local people aren't willing to fight their own battles, then neither should we be willing to send in our troops. The majority of South Vietnamese appeared to be completely unwilling to fight the North, so we should have let the North take over.
Published: September 4, 2007 6:05 PM
Anthony and Dmitry,
I appreciate your input.
The idea of sitting around waiting for someone to take us out is a bit disconcerting, but I will consider what you've said.
Thanks.
Published: September 5, 2007 12:43 AM