RoR: Forum

Still touting my own "Capitalism and Peace." http://www.solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0337.shtml

Andrew and Nicole, thanks!

Thanks to Brant Gaede who wrote much, including: "... can you imagine an Ayn Rand hero joining the army and hiting the beaches of Normandy to liberate France? What is missing here?"

Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Lidice.... none was a moral action. They were only carried out by the so-called "Allies" or the self-styled "Axis" two looter gangs at war.

How about Oklahoma City? Was that not a rational and moral attack by patriotic Americans resisting an immoral collectivist tax-looter welfare state? Oh... Well... No, it was not. It was immoral. It was wrong. Killing people in any context, even "self-defense" (so-called) is never good. At best, we can avoid a worse wrong. Even so, violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

After 2500 years of reason, we ought to be able to come up with a mode of interaction better than killing more people faster. We have. It is called capitalism. It has antecedents. For instance, much of these discussions assume that both sides are entrenched, if not geographically, then ideologically. "We must fight or die!" -- as if that were not a false alternative. Read about the Greeks you admire. When surrounded by Persians, the Greeks of Ionia snuck out at night and rowed away, taking their newly-invented coins with them. Bleeding to death for the land where your pilgrims cried is stupid. Rational people know when to walk away from a fight.

So-called "Objectivists" who glorify war are really self-conflicted individuals who latched onto a philosophy that they hope will reduce their inner dissonances.

If you can understand how good people can be Christians, then you can understand how bad people can be Objectivists.

Post 41

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:10am

The purpose of the American military machine is to protect American lives. The presence of dictatorships is a danger to American lives. If the American military determines that the best way to annihilate despots and terrorists is to nuke them, their surroundings and their infrastructure, then that is the moral thing to do. If the military sees that it can do this while saving the nearby civilian population, then great. If not, then American lives are pre-eminent.

If we used such overwhelming and immediate force when necessary to eliminate the world's murderers, then those who support them would be dead or no longer attempt to attack America.

The above stance would not result in the killing of 200 million or a billion muslims. The murderers who wish to rule their own nation would get the message that that is impossible after 2 or 3 nuclear weapons -- as Japan did.

Post 42

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:37am

David Elmore wrote: "The presence of dictatorships is a danger to American lives. If the American military determines that the best way to annihilate despots and terrorists is to nuke them, their surroundings and their infrastructure, then that is the moral thing to do."

Are you advocating that we attack Singapore?

Do you realize that until just recently, there were no free elections in Taiwan? It was against the law in Taiwan to advocate independence from China. When Chiang kai Shek landed there, his Kwo Min Tang slaughtered between 10,000 and 15,000 potential enemies. The KMT "legislature" was appportioned based on mainlain districts. This was a dictatorship, a one-party state. Would you have nuked Taiwan?

Brazil, Argentina,... you can hardly find an unbroken democracy in the western hemisphere. Dozens of Americans have been killed by government-sanctioned paramilitaries in Central America, especially El Salvador.

Post 43

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:40am

I want to step back a few posts to answer Aquinas:

I'd like to second David's opinion by saying that one whole dictatorship country is not worth one American soldier. If, unfortunately, civilians under an enemy regime have to die on a massive scale to protect the U.S. so be it.

I think this perception is integral, because it shows that one is easy to jump towards whatever use of force and power is instead of analysing once own argument.
He rightfully claims that it is not worth one "American soldier". And the second half would be right, too, if it WERE necessary.
And despite everything there has been said about this point, it wasn't necessary. The US was never in danger of being attacked by IRAQ (as it was never in real danger of being attacked by CUBA and this country is even closer to the US).

So, instead of wasting your precious soldiers, the US should have gotten their priorities right. There is no use to strike against diffuse targets, because you will only waste and overexpand your own power, until the point where it is really necessary.
However, this thinking has gone by so many of the pro-war Objectivists that it isn't even regarded.
If there is a bombing in Madrid by an ETA terrorist, will the Spanish government level Barcelona or any other city in the land of the Basques?! No, of course not, because they are no real danger and they distinguish between enemies and civilians...

Post 44

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:46am

I am baffled by David Elmore's post #28 in this series. He attacks Robert Bidinotto as descending into ad hominen for characterizing some of the posts on this thread as displaying "glee" and "macho bravado." See RB's post #24. Please note that Robert attacked no one and complained only about their language.

Mr. Elmore should re-read his own post #15. He uses the terms "wipe out" "annililation", and "nuking." He also says, "Any bad people who still want to play terrorist can learn what 6 million degrees feels like." Sounds like glee and macho bravado to me.

Post 45

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:00am

"Meanwhile, China, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Libya and others need to be on our immediate raze list -- nonobjectivist public opinion be fucking damned!"

(later)

"If we used such overwhelming and immediate force when necessary to eliminate the world's murderers, then those who support them would be dead or no longer attempt to attack America.

The above stance would not result in the killing of 200 million or a billion muslims."

I consider 'raze' to mean what it means, ie. to level, demolish, obliterate. Survivors mean an incomplete job of razing.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html
China 1,298,847,624
North Korea 22,697,553
Syria 18,016,874
Pakistan 159,196,336
Iran 69,018,924
Libya 5,631,585

Your 'raze list' may not result in killing 200 million or a billion muslims, but if so it's only because most of the population on it is non-muslim. If you're now abandoning the raze list in favor of 'surgical' nuclear strikes, that's a start - a very small one, but a start.

Post 46

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:24am

Nukes are just powder bombs on steroids. They are not bugaboo bombs.

This is a dangerous view to have. Nuclear weapons are not just really big bombs. They have effects which go beyond that of conventional explosives. Flatten a city with a nuke, and that land is going to be useless and dangerous for the next century. If the fact that this displaces the surviving population and gives them radioactivity-related illnesses for the rest of their lives means nothing, this also makes it impossible for the US to search that city afterwards to verify the elimination of the intended targets, or to use that city as a base for further operations in a hostile region.

And of course, there are also the political ramifications to be considered. No nation has used a nuclear weapon since World War II. No nation wants to be the first to do so, since any nation which does so preemptively is going to immediately be threatened by strikes from the other nuclear powers. There is presently a stigma of sorts on the use of nuclear weapons, but as soon as someone starts using them, that will probably change. Once we use a nuke, it gets easier for the next person to use one—and the next person could easily be someone like China or Pakistan who can't exactly be counted on to use it in what we would consider a responsible manner.

Nukes should not be used casually, or even talked about in the casual manner of ARI. A nuclear strike will have significant consequences. I'm not advocating disarmament—nukes are an option that needs to be kept open, just in case some unthinkable scenario comes up that offers no other option. But they should not be used unless the situation is one which specifically necessitates them.

Post 47

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:01am

The quotations cited by Bill and Aaron in posts 44 and 45 were exactly what I had in mind about "macho bravado" --i.e., salivating over the propect of the "annihilation" of millions of subhumans in a long list of nations that we should "wipe out" and "raze" and incinerate at "6 million degrees." Silly me: I thought that the rhetoric of extermination had fallen out of favor after the liberation of Auschwitz.

On the practical side, Andrew (post 31) and Andre (post 34) have done a good job pointing out the stupidity of a policy of indiscriminately nuking the civilian populations of an expansive list of nations -- which would be the best recruiting tool al Qaeda could ever dream of. Because anyone who thinks dropping nukes all over the Middle East (and maybe China, too) will stop Osama, hiding safely in his remote cave in Afghanistan, is a military ignoramus -- the kindest term I can apply to the likes of Peikoff and Brook. Why not ask seasoned, high-level military strategists about the feasibility and strategic value of nuking a host of nations, before joining the Nuclear Crusades of a handful of crackpot academics? And why not ask a few Exxon executives about the feasibility of reclaiming the oil fields in the Middle East, when all your workers have to live in radiation suits.

You know, I'm just humbled to be in the presence of such geopolitical geniuses.

Finally, let's be precise about the meaning of an "ad hominem" argument. It means that you substitute a personal attack for a substantive argument that addresses your adversary's case. Anyone can see that I had already addressed the moral arguments put forth by the Nuke 'Em Till They Glow advocates, before I said that I also objected to tough-guy rhetoric and posturing extolling the extermination of millions.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/28, 7:04am)

Post 48

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:39am

I just got to this thread. I can't believe what I'm reading. I can't believe that anyone with any respect for human life would advocate the use of nuclear weapons in dealing with terrorists. Besides being impractical, it is enormously unjust and bypasses the enormous advances in military technology which reduce collateral damage. The real problem with the Iraq War is that we've got a huge number of soldiers on the ground with bullseyes in their backs. The followup to the invasion should have been massive conventional air raids to continue to take out strategic targets.

Post 49

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:44am

I don�t want to join the chorus of arm-chair generals. However, there is one point I'd like to address. A few have implied that the enemy is so awesome that we must be militarily timid or else we won't be able to defeat these 7th century savages. I read, for example:

�... best recruiting tool al Qaeda could ever dream of� �... will earn the US undying hatred from Muslims� �... radicalize the Muslim world against the U.S.�

This reminds me of the time Rand castigated the Left and the Right for the demoralizing rhetoric that painted the Soviet State as an intractable foe that's intrinsically superior. That being said, might I suggest that there are alternatives between �nuke �em all� and �altruistic appeasement?�

Post 50

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:59am

I find it disturbing that the leadership at ARI has once again made objectivists all look like a bunch of heartless blood thirsty war mongers in the pubic's eye. They have got some serious PR problems and not just about the war. I saw big issues with the Tsunami relief thing too. I guess that's why they are called Randroids. I just keep wondering what Ayn Rand's stance would be were she still around.

Thank you Mike M. for posting on that article. Nature, your comments were spot on. Do we really want to open the door to nuclear warfare? Why use a hammer when a fly swatter will do? There have been so many intelligent comments made here.

*purr alert*

My dear Michael, I don't know how you do it, but you seem to always read my mind and express my thoughts so clearly. Feel free to sign my name to your posts on this matter and save me some typing. *purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Post 51

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:31am

I find myself searching for a concrete decision making rubric to use in this matter. I read David and Aquinus and my emotional response is YES! "They" are threatening my children, I will make a war on them and whoever harbors them like they have never seen, and will never see again. I read MSK and MM, Robert and Kathy, and the wholesale approach seems out of proportion to the threat. I will get back to it later.

Post 52

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:32am

Glad you brought up the Soviet Union example, Jason. For those so eager to drop The Big One, please imagine what America and the world would look like today if Yaron Brook had had his finger on the nuclear button during the Cuban missile crisis... Yet somehow we managed to obliterate the Evil Empire without dropping a single nuke.

Why then do we need to use nukes against what you rightly call "7th century savages"?

The reason we should refrain from nuking our Islamicist enemies is not because they are "so awesome," but precisely because they are so puny that we can take them down with far less firepower -- and far less international "blowback" against us, which using nukes would inevitably bring. Shutting down international terrorist cells requires that we secure cooperation with many nations where they operate. Name a single country anywhere -- including even Britain -- that would continue to cooperate with us once we commenced the nuclear "annihilation" of nations from Saudi Arabia to China.

On the other hand, since September 2001 -- without dropping a single nuke on anybody -- we've taken down the Taliban in Afghanistan, deposed Saddam's regime in Iraq, set up the beginnings of a peaceful representative government in his place (thus destabilizing surrounding Arab dictatorships), intimidated Libya into ending its WMD development, intimidated Muslim Syria into withdrawing its occupational army from Lebanon, enlisted even Muslim Pakistan to fight al Qaeda, and the list goes on.

There's a crude, simplistic equation here between "demonstrating strength and resolve," and using nukes. If the premise of our military should be that we should never risk the life of a single U. S. soldier (as ARI and some here say), then dropping nuclear bombs logically becomes not the final, but the first military option in virtually any international conflict.

Which begs the question: Why have soldiers at all? Why not "resolve" every conflict with an ICBM?

Post 53

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:38am

I'm shocked, shocked, Bidinotto using straw men and ad hominem fallacies to make an argument!

"But deliberately targeting the civilians per se, rather than the power structure and military forces..."(post 24)

Could you give a name or a post number of someone, anywhere who said this?

"The militaries of Syria or Iran pose no threat to us..." REALLY?
"...their regimes do, only because the shelter and support terrorists." ONLY?

"The regimes are therefore the legitimate target, and their support systems are relatively easy to disrupt and neutralize well short of indiscriminate [who said this again] bombing of civilians."

Why is the military not doing this?
Why didn't the United States not follow this simple plan in Iraq?

Post 54

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:55am

Imagine that 500,000 New Yorkers are killed in a terrorist attack tomorrow. Bin Laden videotapes a threat that Cleveland will be getting hit next week.

What do we do?

Post 55

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:55am

The reason we should refrain from nuking our Islamicist enemies is not because they are "so awesome," but precisely because they are so puny that we can take them down with far less firepower

Damn it, Bidinotto, I was hoping to make that point!

Post 56

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:05am

Those who can't believe that ARI officially condones the deliberate targeting of civilians for destruction should click here. There is simply no other way to interpret Yaron Brook's remarks to Bill O'Reilly: "brutal" was his own word for what he advocates.

(This is a video interview, and requires a program like Windows Media Player or RealPlayer.)

Post 57

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:06am

Good grief. Just when I start reconsidering the value of ARI, it publicly spouts insanity. The U.S. government should fight terrorism by deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons? I'm shocked, disturbed, and embarassed.

And by the way, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was profoundly immoral. Historians agree that President Truman was advised against doing so by top military officials, who informed him that such an action was unecessary to win the war and would result in unprecedented devastation. And here's what the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946:

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

In other words, Truman was just another president intoxicated by power . . . and determined to display it, whatever the costs. Will wonders never cease?

Post 58

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:14am

On the other hand, since September 2001 -- without dropping a single nuke on anybody -- we've taken down the Taliban in Afghanistan, deposed Saddam's regime in Iraq, set up the beginnings of a peaceful representative government in his place (thus destabilizing surrounding Arab dictatorships), intimidated Libya into ending its WMD development, intimidated Muslim Syria into withdrawing its occupational army from Lebanon, enlisted even Muslim Pakistan to fight al Qaeda, and the list goes on.

But... I thought we were losing.

In the closing remarks of his talk, Brook said, "We are losing a war on Islamic terrorism because we are crippled by altruism and just war theory."

Now I'm curious what Brook would consider a victory over Islamic terrorism.

Post 59

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:17am