Conza88:/sigh - This has been covered before...
Your point being?
Conza88:Rothbard's argument is NOT unsound, you have erected a strawman - that is all.
I erected no strawman, so stop the accusations. All I did was to show why this response is unsound:
Wanderer: Rothbard says that possession of WMDs is effectively aggression, as they have no purpose but taking life. I agree with that assertion. The hell does anyone need a nuclear weapon for? Not just Iran, but any country.
Rothbard says that possession of WMDs is effectively aggression, as they have no purpose but taking life. I agree with that assertion. The hell does anyone need a nuclear weapon for? Not just Iran, but any country.
Conza88:Only the use or threat thereof, not merely owning or possessing. A clear and definitive distinction.
You misunderstand Rothbard's argument as for the very owning, or possessing of a WMD is threat, and a deterring force. One cannot just say: "We just own this thermo-nuclear warhead, its not like its a threat to you", or "We just own all of this nerve agent, it is no threat to you."
In the end though, if you have problems with the way I have represented Rothbard's argument, take it up with Stranger for all I have claimed to be doing is refuting the argument that I originally quote. Furthermore, if you believe my refutation of that is unsound, actually explain why rather than saying I have erected a strawman, and arguing by assertion.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
No government has a right to nuclear weapons. No government has a right to exist, for that matter.
Now in a hypothetical stateless planet, WMD's should not exist. Anybody found developing them should be arrested, tried and shot.
In my opinion.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:Now in a hypothetical stateless planet, WMD's should not exist. Anybody found developing them should be arrested, tried and shot.
What would be the charges?
bloomj31: Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat.
Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat.
Not for Israel who can nuke Iran easily.
laminustacitus:What would be the charges?
Private property comrade!
Vitor: bloomj31: Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat. Not for Israel who can nuke Iran easily.
The people who go on about Israel never like to be reminded that Israel has nukes, and Israel refuses weapons inspections, that were apparently a good enough reason to attack Saddam Hussein. Oh double standards...
laminustacitus:I erected no strawman
You've carried it on. Your response to Wanderer is correct, however your attribution / concession that Rothbard held the same view as what Wanderer stipulated, is completely erroneous - because he didn't.
laminustacitus:You misunderstand Rothbard's argument as for the very owning, or possessing of a WMD is threat, and a deterring force
That is not his argument at all. And you haven't even once referred to the primary source, you should probably do that.
"These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use or the threat thereof of nuclear or similar weapons, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."
Only the use or threat thereof, not merely owning or possessing. A clear and definitive distinction.Substitute nuclear weapon for gun as you have done earlier and you get:
"the use or the threat thereof of a [using a] gun, is a sin and a crime... for which there can be no justification." (Back to WMD's - unless: "The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.") So there is a possible rare case for justification...
Owning the gun is not a threat, nor a crime... it is just an object. Owning a golf club is not a threat, nor a crime... However, using the gun / golf club on innocent people or threatening the initiation of violence against innocent people - is a crime. And this follows along with every single other thing Rothbard has written on the issue.
What exactly is not understood?
laminustacitus:In the end though, if you have problems with the way I have represented Rothbard's argument, take it up with Stranger for all I have claimed to be doing is refuting the argument that I originally quote.
I'll take it up with whoever I believe to be making / propagating a fallacious assertion and attributing bs to someone who never held such a view.
laminustacitus:Furthermore, if you believe my refutation of that is unsound, actually explain why rather than saying I have erected a strawman, and arguing by assertion.
It's not, your deductions of it are accurate - imo, it's just that Rothbard never held that view... so it should not be attributed to him.
The thing that is frustrating about living in a stateful society is that we have to discuss hypothetical situations that would likely be un-realistic in a stateless society.
It is indeed a problem because statists are going to ask about problems that are typically belonging to stateful societies, and assume that they are equally prone in stateless society's than proceed to assume something must be done about it.
bloomj31: I would take this one step further and say that I think it's very unlikely that anyone's mind gets changed through internet conversations. No matter what their stance is.
I would take this one step further and say that I think it's very unlikely that anyone's mind gets changed through internet conversations. No matter what their stance is.
Any excuse is a good one.
You know, I’ll never understand the position of a libertarian who denounces WMD. They are the only way to stop inter-state wars! How many wars (not skirmishes) have taken place between nuclear powers? How many would have taken place hadn’t nukes ever been invested? How many deaths have been spared? At the very least India and Pakistan would have maimed each other for decades, not to mention NATO and the WarPac. Or when did the only nuclear attacks ever recorded take place? Perhaps when only one power possesed such weapons? But that should come as no surprise to economists...or should it?
If it where up to me do decide, I’d sell nuclear technology right away to Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, both Koreas, Japan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and whichever other nations willing to pay the price. In a statist world balance-of-power is as good as it shall ever get when it comes to peace (all hail Metternich!).
Imagine a world where nuclear weapons are produces rather cheaply: no more wars. And we all know that if a state stops expanding it must fall. Can’t we see the opportunity we have been given here?
Merlin:How many wars (not skirmishes) have taken place between nuclear powers?
But I will say this: The only reason we haven't invaded iran is because they have nukes. Same with Nkorea. US foriegn policy sends a huge message to the world: We will invade you if we don't like you but if you have WMDs we won't.
This means that WMDs are the only feasible means of self defense against the US. Doesn't this mean its okay for small powers to have WMDs? It is illegit for large powers to have WMDs because they can serve no defensive advantage, though I think that I agree with what Merlin is saying that WMDs are a sound strategy for defense in some cases.
Snowflake: But I will say this: The only reason we haven't invaded iran is because they have nukes.
But I will say this: The only reason we haven't invaded iran is because they have nukes.
Snowflake:Cold war.
La drôle de guerre.
1. Governments have no rights. People have rights.
2. Democracy does not give rights to governments - negative rights (restrictions on government power) are defined, but then the government is allowed to interpret whether it follows the rules or not. This is a completely deficient system.
3. Neither the U.S. nor Iran are a democracy.
4. Governments in general do not have prohibitions placed upon them by the people they claim to represent that they shall not have nuclear weapons. Those nations that do have such restrictions - good for them. The U.S. has no such restrictions on itself. Iran has no such restrictions on itself.
5. Governments operate by force or coercion, not rights. The very existence of a government violates the rights of those it claims to represent.
6. Governments may from time to time enter into treaties with other governments. This is done for political reasons. Governments also break treaties. The U.S. does this routinely as the political climate changes every 4 years or so on average depending on which party is in power. Iran is free to break whatever treaty it wishes to break, but then must be able to handle the political consequences, including war.
7. Iran is in the process of developing long range ballistic missiles (test fired a mid-range missile today) and nuclear detonators that are only used for nuclear weapons (as reported earlier this week). The argument that Iran is not after offensive nuclear weapons doesn't stand against the facts.
8. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. Nuclear weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill people in mass numbers. A nation may have a policy that uses the threat of a nuclear attack as a defensive measure, but this is aggression and a provocation to war. The U.S. and Russia are still in the state of this form of aggression despite the declaration that the Cold War is over. By developing nuclear weapons to "defend" itself from Israel, Iran will have committed aggression and provoked war. But let's put this into perspective. Israel has essentially become a satellite nuclear base for the U.S., while Iran is becoming the same for Russia. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and no treaty is capable of stopping that.
9. An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation.
liberty student: Vitor: bloomj31: Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat. Not for Israel who can nuke Iran easily. The people who go on about Israel never like to be reminded that Israel has nukes, and Israel refuses weapons inspections, that were apparently a good enough reason to attack Saddam Hussein. Oh double standards...
Well, Israel is wise to be discreet about things. But I also dont worry about Iran because their goverment is getting weaker and more unpopular everyday.
K.C. Farmer:An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation.
“Function”? Who cares? The NAP can only be broken by...actually breaking it! Not wanting to break it! Only the detonation of a nuclear device on innocents can break the NAP, not the posibility thereof.
Vitor: liberty student: Vitor: bloomj31: Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat. Not for Israel who can nuke Iran easily. The people who go on about Israel never like to be reminded that Israel has nukes, and Israel refuses weapons inspections, that were apparently a good enough reason to attack Saddam Hussein. Oh double standards... Well, Israel is wise to be discreet about things. But I also dont worry about Iran because their goverment is getting weaker and more unpopular everyday.
You can count on Obama to reverse that trend.
K.C. Farmer:1. Governments have no rights. People have rights.
Your point being? We're not commiting the holistic fallacy. The use of the word "government" could just as easily be "state agent". Government is just shorthand, in this case, for individuals organized as a government. And those individuals do have rights.
K.C. Farmer:3. Neither the U.S. nor Iran are a democracy.
Actually, the U.S. is a democracy. The rulers of the U.S. are democratically elected.
K.C. Farmer:5. Governments operate by force or coercion, not rights.
Operating within a framework of rights and employing coercion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, sometimes government does provide legitimate services to its citizens.
K.C. Farmer:7. Iran is in the process of developing long range ballistic missiles (test fired a mid-range missile today) and nuclear detonators that are only used for nuclear weapons (as reported earlier this week). The argument that Iran is not after offensive nuclear weapons doesn't stand against the facts.
I would like some links to all this. If they do develop them, good for them. And good for the entire region and maybe even the world.
K.C. Farmer:8. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. Nuclear weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill people in mass numbers. A nation may have a policy that uses the threat of a nuclear attack as a defensive measure, but this is aggression and a provocation to war. The U.S. and Russia are still in the state of this form of aggression despite the declaration that the Cold War is over. By developing nuclear weapons to "defend" itself from Israel, Iran will have committed aggression and provoked war. But let's put this into perspective. Israel has essentially become a satellite nuclear base for the U.S., while Iran is becoming the same for Russia. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and no treaty is capable of stopping that.
If an aggressor sends an armada or tank column to invade your country, and your government nukes it, how has it been used aggressively? The simple fact is that it can be used defensively, just like any weapon can be. The potential for collateral damage is greater, because of the weapons destructive power, but that doesn't change the fact that it is possible and even practical to use defensively without any collateral damage, making it a perfectly libertarian weapon.
By the way, this "state of aggression" between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. cost far fewer lives than most contemporary conflits between great powers precisely because both sides were armed with nuclear weapons. Overall, this "state of aggression" is preferable to a lack of this "state of aggression".
K.C. Farmer:9. An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation.
The only criminal would be the jerk who tries to stop him.
Merlin: K.C. Farmer:An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation. “Function”? Who cares? The NAP can only be broken by...actually breaking it! Not wanting to break it! Only the detonation of a nuclear device on innocents can break the NAP, not the posibility thereof.
Threatening to launch it on innocents is considered aggression as well. Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. Having a WMD is not aggression. Threatening to launch it is.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Not sure what's up with the site today, or if it's on my end. Damn Al Gore and his internets!
I had a lengthy response that was lost because of the problem. I may have to cover my points separately when I have the opportunity, and that might not be today.
Merlin: You know, I’ll never understand the position of a libertarian who denounces WMD. They are the only way to stop inter-state wars! How many wars (not skirmishes) have taken place between nuclear powers? How many would have taken place hadn’t nukes ever been invested? How many deaths have been spared? At the very least India and Pakistan would have maimed each other for decades, not to mention NATO and the WarPac. Or when did the only nuclear attacks ever recorded take place? Perhaps when only one power possesed such weapons? But that should come as no surprise to economists...or should it? If it where up to me do decide, I’d sell nuclear technology right away to Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, both Koreas, Japan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and whichever other nations willing to pay the price. In a statist world balance-of-power is as good as it shall ever get when it comes to peace (all hail Metternich!). Imagine a world where nuclear weapons are produces rather cheaply: no more wars. And we all know that if a state stops expanding it must fall. Can’t we see the opportunity we have been given here?
Interesting point. If we hold that
1. Small arms have been beneficial to personal liberty, and would decrease interpersonal violence in anarchy
2. States are in anarchy with respect to each other
Then it seems at least plausible that nukes could reduce interstate violence.
Why anarchy fails
Copy all of your posts before you submit them. The forum is very unpredictable today.
Spideynw:Threatening to launch it on innocents is considered aggression as well. Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. Having a WMD is not aggression. Threatening to launch it is.
We disagree on the essence of the NAP. You hold that verbal, non-immediate (“I’ll nuke you, Israel!”, “I’ll kill Andy one of these days!”) threats are punishable, I hold that only a very immediate threat (a missile being refueled, you pointing your gun at me) can command self-defensive action (but not latter punishment). The only way to see who’s position is nearer to the truth is, as I’ve mentioned a few times before, to see which variation of the rule will result more practical by Insurance Companies to use. This can’t be decided theoretically.
Merlin: The only way to see who’s position is nearer to the truth is, as I’ve mentioned a few times before, to see which variation of the rule will result more practical by Insurance Companies to use. This can’t be decided theoretically.
Exactly. I think it can't be decided theoretically for reasons analogous to why the economy cannot be centrally managed.
Merlin:I hold that only a very immediate threat (a missile being refueled, you pointing your gun at me) can command self-defensive action
The point I was trying to make is that action does not actually have to take place for aggression to occur. Each situation would have to be evaluated individually. If someone has a gun at home and tells me that s/he is going to hunt me down and shoot me if I don't do give him/her my money, that could still be considered a threat, and therefore aggression. Would you not agree?
Spideynw:If someone has a gun at home and tells me that s/he is going to hunt me down and shoot me if I don't do give him/her my money, that could still be considered a threat, and therefore aggression. Would you not agree?
Actually not. People are full of bs and as an insurer I wouldn’t pay a single penny to cover the supposed “liability” of a guy who threatened you along the lines you brought forward. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t pay a single penny to anyone who threatens anybody else, be it an immediate threat. Threatening somebody allows the “offended” party only to act in self-defense, NOT to retaliate afterwards, and it is precisely to give up his right to retaliate that I’m paying the offended party.
Spideynw: ... Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. ...
... Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. ...
How do you tell apart a "WMD" that is pointed at someone and a "WMD" that is not pointed at someone? What would be the difference?
Marko: Spideynw: ... Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. ... How do you tell apart a "WMD" that is pointed at someone and a "WMD" that is not pointed at someone? What would be the difference?
Starting a countdown to launch.
Merlin: Spideynw:If someone has a gun at home and tells me that s/he is going to hunt me down and shoot me if I don't do give him/her my money, that could still be considered a threat, and therefore aggression. Would you not agree? Actually not. People are full of bs and as an insurer I wouldn’t pay a single penny to cover the supposed “liability” of a guy who threatened you along the lines you brought forward. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t pay a single penny to anyone who threatens anybody else, be it an immediate threat. Threatening somebody allows the “offended” party only to act in self-defense, NOT to retaliate afterwards, and it is precisely to give up his right to retaliate that I’m paying the offended party.
OK. I don't see how insurance has anything to do with this situation, but whatever. I thought we were talking about what would legally be considered aggression.
Spideynw: OK. I don't see how insurance has anything to do with this situation, but whatever. I thought we were talking about what would legally be considered aggression.
My point was just that there’s no such thing as a “legal” standard. Our standard of what is punishable and what isn’t can only be inferred by looking at a functioning Liability Insurance (or Arbitration) market, and checking out what standard of punishable conduct turns out profitable for them to operate upon. It’s just my way of guessing what is “legal”.
Thus, a gang of Iranians (having nuclear weapons) in a potential anarchist commonwealth making a verbal nuclear threat to a predominantly Israeli city (say, Tel-Aviv) probably wouldn’t be considered “punishable” along these lines, just as those same Iranian gangs refueling mobile ballistic missile positions BUT NOT LAUNCHING AFTERWARDS would not entitle Tel-Aviv citizens to a payment by any Insurer, but would likewise allow for no payment to Iranian gangsters should those Tel-Aviv citizens decide to hire someone to nuke those positions in immediate self-defense (until they have been disarmed). That’s how I feel about the issue of WMDs breaking moral standards by their mere existence.
The question is what is considered aggression? That is what we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if you own an insurance agency or not.
I don't know that a verbal threat would necessarily be considered aggression. It might though, depending on the situation.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:1. Governments have no rights. People have rights. Your point being? We're not commiting the holistic fallacy. The use of the word "government" could just as easily be "state agent". Government is just shorthand, in this case, for individuals organized as a government. And those individuals do have rights.
You seem to believe that people can transfer rights to a government or agent. If the structure is 100% voluntary, then I could see how this might apply, though it's a stretch and the individuals still maintain their rights. I wouldn't go as far to say that the organization itself has rights.
A simple test: Does an individual under such a government structure have the freedom to leave the organization? In terms of States, individuals who opt out are either imprisoned or even executed. Since the subject deals with governments in terms of national governments such as Iran, then we can dispense with the mythical government where it is 100% voluntary.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:3. Neither the U.S. nor Iran are a democracy. Actually, the U.S. is a democracy. The rulers of the U.S. are democratically elected.
The U.S. is a Republic of popularly elected representatives (at least Congress and the Senate). The President of the U.S. is elected by an electoral college, with electorates assigned by the states in different ways (some by popular vote, some all or nothing). The U.S. is not at all a Democracy.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:5. Governments operate by force or coercion, not rights. Operating within a framework of rights and employing coercion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, sometimes government does provide legitimate services to its citizens.
There is nothing legitimate in the use of force or coercion to provide services, no matter how beneficial those services may seem. And who determines this framework of rights? Rights for whom? The People? The Government? Applying the test again, if I choose to opt out of the organization, what is the response? If it's force or coercion, then it is not justified.
Now if you are speaking on the application of force on an aggressor, that is different, however there is nothing to suggest that only the State may do this. In addition, States have abused this power ever since they were given it.
Governments operate on aggression. What they give to one person, they have taken from another.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:7. Iran is in the process of developing long range ballistic missiles (test fired a mid-range missile today) and nuclear detonators that are only used for nuclear weapons (as reported earlier this week). The argument that Iran is not after offensive nuclear weapons doesn't stand against the facts. I would like some links to all this. If they do develop them, good for them. And good for the entire region and maybe even the world.
Links:
Missile Test: http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Iran+Missile&ei=UTF-8
More recent statements from the Pentagon say that there is nothing new in terms of intelligence concerning the new missile. I will say however, that the Pentagon would not report publically on any new intelligence it had on the missile, so such a statement is pretty much meaningless. Any capability Iran has is most definitely classified - old and new.
Neutron Initiator: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece
Since the London Times is the only source I've found to be in possession of the leaked classified document, other news agencies are speculating on the content and whether or not the information is legitimate. But this is not the first time Iran has been after this or similar technology.
9/10/2008 IAEA INVESTIGATES THE ACTIVITY OF RUSSIAN SCIENTIST IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPERIMENTS In October 2008, the IAEA began an investigation into a Russian scientist who allegedly helped Iran conduct nuclear weapons related experiments. The agency obtained a five-page document written in Farsi from undisclosed sources, detailing precision detonator experiments that were allegedly conducted by Iran with the Russian scientist's help. Iranian officials called the charges "groundless" and insisted that the experiments were for conventional arms. The case has yet to be closed.
Sources: [1] Elaine Sciolino, "Nuclear Aid by Russian to Iranians Suspected," The New York Times, www.nytimes.com, 9 October 2008 [2] "Russian Aided Iranian Nuke Research, IAEA Suspects," Global Security Newswire, gsn.nti.org/gsn, 10 October 2008.
Since documentation of this nature will be classified, it's hard to show public proof that this is 100% factual.
I do not share your optimism on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:8. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. Nuclear weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill people in mass numbers. A nation may have a policy that uses the threat of a nuclear attack as a defensive measure, but this is aggression and a provocation to war. The U.S. and Russia are still in the state of this form of aggression despite the declaration that the Cold War is over. By developing nuclear weapons to "defend" itself from Israel, Iran will have committed aggression and provoked war. But let's put this into perspective. Israel has essentially become a satellite nuclear base for the U.S., while Iran is becoming the same for Russia. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and no treaty is capable of stopping that. If an aggressor sends an armada or tank column to invade your country, and your government nukes it, how has it been used aggressively? The simple fact is that it can be used defensively, just like any weapon can be. The potential for collateral damage is greater, because of the weapons destructive power, but that doesn't change the fact that it is possible and even practical to use defensively without any collateral damage, making it a perfectly libertarian weapon. By the way, this "state of aggression" between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. cost far fewer lives than most contemporary conflits between great powers precisely because both sides were armed with nuclear weapons. Overall, this "state of aggression" is preferable to a lack of this "state of aggression".
There are two general types of nuclear weapons: tactical and strategic.
While you could possibly use a tactical nuke for defensive purposes, the extreme care that such an act does not extend beyond one's own property makes this a very ineffective option. In addition, the use of this weapon destroys property, which seems contrary to property rights and self defense. An invading army enters you property - so what? Rather than destroy your own property, and potentially your own life in the process, would it not be more effective to cause the opponent to try and hold the property. You will find that an invading army is very good at killing other armies, but not effective at holding property without the consent of the people. In addition, there are many more effective ways to defend oneself rather than destroy property. The goal is to destroy the invading army, right? Back to the test. If I don't want my own property to be destroyed or my family to die in the Government's nuclear response to a convential army invasion, do I have the option to opt out? No, I do not, and my government has performed an act of agression against it's own people. Calling this a "perfectly libertarian weapon" is offensive, especially since you call for justification of the government to use it.
Strategic nuclear weapons aren't used for defensive purposes, they are used for retaliation. The only potential just cause for using such a weapon is if you are nuked yourself - at that point self defense is an afterthought. Threatening to use a strategic nuclear weapon is itself an act of aggression and provocation to war.
Nuclear weapons, particularly nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, require that they be armed and targeted. The simple act of arming and targeting a nuke is itself an act of aggression, whether the nukes are tactical or strategic. One need not say anything, the threat is implied by the action. If someone violates the NAP, you are permitted to protect yourself by means that are considered reasonable and proportional. Hopefully you can do so without force.
Your position of the Cold War is quite interesting, but I don't think you've taken into account the real impact of that conflict. While the U.S. and U.S.S.R. did not have very much face to face conflict, the war was prosecuted via proxy. Look at the full extent of this conflict, and I think you'll see tons of devastation in terms of property and lives. There were several times where this "state of aggression" nearly led to unleashing nuclear devastation on a good part of the planet. The more governments that have nuclear weapons, the greater the potential for a nuclear exchange. Iran is one of those nations who may just pull the trigger.
Stephen: K.C. Farmer:9. An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation. The only criminal would be the jerk who tries to stop him.
To clarify. Creating, arming and targeting a nuclear weapon is a violation of the NAP. The discussion on the types and uses of nukes should cover this in more detail.
So let's put it this way...
You have a neighbor who says he hates you and wants to literally wipe you off the face of the earth. He has bought a gun and is working on acquiring some bullets. He's found a seller for the bullets, and they should be delivered next week. He's reiterated that you will die very soon, and if you try to stop him he's going to kill you with his knife. He has also provided money and support for assassins to kill you, and you have been attacked several times. When he attempts to shoot you, you will have no warning. What do you do? Do you wait until the gun is loaded and pointed at you? Do you wait until he shoots? Or do you already have justification to act?
auctionguy10: There already is a group of nutjobs that have the capability to evaporate major cities- and they've done it more than once(the United States). Keeping troops overseas doesn't do anything to protect anyone- its only purpose is occupation and to continue the bloodbath of foreign and US military lives. Immediate pullout is not only the best option- its the only option that needs to be taken.
Non Answer. Whatever the US leaders of the past did, that does not mean the leaders of Iran are not a threat and that them having nukes is a good idea or something to be taken lightly. One nut job hacking someone to death doesn't mean letting another nut job have a machette is a good idea. Immediate pull out is not necessarily the best option because immediate forgiveness for the policy errors of our forerunners is not forthcoming now, nor likely will be any time soon. A reduction in troops, certainly. An end to overt hostile actions, certainly. Decimating the US's defensive capabilities when there are people out there, some in positions of state power with armies and stores of weapons at their disposal, to score ethical and moral points with our consciences isn't necessarily the best option.
Also, extremely naive. If anything, our experience in the middle east should teach us that memories are long and forgiveness is short. The idea that immediate withdrawal of our troops will engender smiles and flowers and waves of forgiveness among the people of the middle east, who themselves are still stuck in a massively statist ideology, is ridiculous. We've spent quite a lot of time pissing people off in that region. Yes that was wrong. Yes the right course of action is to pull out, completely in the end. That doesn't mean just walk out and let the situation go to hell, not to mention leave enemies we've already raised and bread with a willing audience and a ready supply of weapons, some of which may be aimed at your home town.
And if you think the full, immediate withdrawal is still the right thing to do despite any dangers, let someone you love be the sacrifice then. Strap your kid, your spouse, one of your parents, or whoever you love most in the world to I'mADinnerJacket's first nuke and let them be killed for your ethical balm. If you are not willing to do that, you have no right to ask it of others, and they have every right to at least propose a phased withdrawal that leads to an eventual disengagement and nonintervention policy while steal dealing with the reality that we have created for ourselves.
xahrx: Non Answer. Whatever the US leaders of the past did, that does not mean the leaders of Iran are not a threat and that them having nukes is a good idea or something to be taken lightly. One nut job hacking someone to death doesn't mean letting another nut job have a machette is a good idea. Immediate pull out is not necessarily the best option because immediate forgiveness for the policy errors of our forerunners is not forthcoming now, nor likely will be any time soon. A reduction in troops, certainly. An end to overt hostile actions, certainly. Decimating the US's defensive capabilities when there are people out there, some in positions of state power with armies and stores of weapons at their disposal, to score ethical and moral points with our consciences isn't necessarily the best option. Also, extremely naive. If anything, our experience in the middle east should teach us that memories are long and forgiveness is short. The idea that immediate withdrawal of our troops will engender smiles and flowers and waves of forgiveness among the people of the middle east, who themselves are still stuck in a massively statist ideology, is ridiculous. We've spent quite a lot of time pissing people off in that region. Yes that was wrong. Yes the right course of action is to pull out, completely in the end. That doesn't mean just walk out and let the situation go to hell, not to mention leave enemies we've already raised and bread with a willing audience and a ready supply of weapons, some of which may be aimed at your home town. And if you think the full, immediate withdrawal is still the right thing to do despite any dangers, let someone you love be the sacrifice then. Strap your kid, your spouse, one of your parents, or whoever you love most in the world to I'mADinnerJacket's first nuke and let them be killed for your ethical balm. If you are not willing to do that, you have no right to ask it of others, and they have every right to at least propose a phased withdrawal that leads to an eventual disengagement and nonintervention policy while steal dealing with the reality that we have created for ourselves.
You`re clueless and talking out of your arse.
liberty student:It's a reasoned answer. Your reply was an appeal to emotion.
No, my reply was an appeal to reality, not a theoretical construct of a purely anarcho capitalist society and what would be ideal in such a place. Emotion is a part of life. Many people in the Middle East are emotional, they are pissed. At the US. Any answer that doesn't at least address that point is incomplete, arm chain theorizing which has a place in a college dorm bull session with no real consequences, not in international policy where a city or few and who knows how many millions of lives are at stake.
liberty student:You mean the only group of mass murderers and nut jobs to ever deploy a nuke against a city, not once, but twice?
Relevance? This is the second time this point has been raised, I have not advocated for a continuance of the state's aggressive actions. I have said a gradual draw down toward non intervention is best, considering we have spent so much time screwing things up around the world.
liberty student:What do you mean by position on whether or not governments have rights or not. It's not a matter of preference. Depending on your own ethics, they either do or do not. Now different ethics could claim they do, but I suspect your own ethics are not consistent with the idea that governments have rights, so the answer should be clear, at least to you.
The decision is not mine however, so what is or is not clear to me isn't the issue. The question of whether or not Iran has a 'right' to nuclear weapons is not satisfied with a one word answer. There is too much implied and left unsaid no matter which word is given.
liberty student:Second, I'm not afraid of Ahamdinejad. I am scared of my government. They are the ones who will tase me and throw me in prison for not paying taxes correctly, or smoking a plant from my garden. They are the ones who will force me to have medical treatment I don't want, take my children from me, and make me fight, kill and die in a meaningless foreign war. If you're scared of Ahmadinejad, you have your blinders on to the threats all around you. My two cents.
I am scared of both of them. Yes, our own state is a threat. ImADinnerJacket is a poweful man near the top of another state, this one controlled by fundamentalist nutjobs hell bent on oppressing their own people, and apparently also desiring long range, massively destructive weapons that can't be focussed on guilty parties unless your idea of guilty party is Cleveland, New York, Tucson, Portland, etc. Not fearing them is incredibly naive. And however bad our state is, and however poorly used our military is, they are also the ones in the current reality who are capable and likely to defend us should another state get upiddy, even if our state just does it to protect its captive tax base. My two cents is you can and should deal with both issues as a matter of practicality. Our government is a fire that should be put out. So is Iran's. But as any firefighter will tell you, you can use fire to fight fire sometimes, and when using water or foam you should prioritize where you aim the hose.
For there to be peace, politics must end. Since we aren't about to witness the end of politics in our lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of our grandchildren, we are sadly resigned to the fact that Governments will behave badly. Governments don't recognize the NAP.
Whether it's justified or not, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. In response Israel, the U.S. and other countries may act upon that fact. Hopefully it can be resolved peacefully; I don't think it will.
I think it is laughable that people think that 1) the U.S. could be threatened by any other government in the world and 2) that bringing the troops home is the same as decimating the U.S. government's defensive capabilities. The only defensive capabilities the U.S. government needs is nuclear weapons. And since they have them, no one is going to invade the U.S.
Marko:You`re clueless and talking out of your arse.
Non answer.
K.C. Farmer:For there to be peace, politics must end. Since we aren't about to witness the end of politics in our lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of our grandchildren, we are sadly resigned to the fact that Governments will behave badly. Governments don't recognize the NAP. Whether it's justified or not, Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. In response Israel, the U.S. and other countries may act upon that fact. Hopefully it can be resolved peacefully; I don't think it will. Exactly. And if those of us who want to get as close to a truly free society as is possible in this world want any movement in that direction, the ivory tower theorizing has to be backed with practical policy approaches that can get some frigging support in the general population. That means a goal of a draw down of troops within the context of somehow soothing the animosity we've spent decades creating in that part of the world, so if Iran does get nukes, they aren't likely to use them against the US. How the US and the USSR resolved their differences, while not perfect, can at least serve as a model. Continuous diplomatic engagement, common ground movements, weapons reduction, TRADE, however unfree it may be at first, etc. At the very least keep them talking long enough for their own extreme statism to collapse and leave us with a chance for a more reasonable leadership to engage. "I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous | Post Points: 35
Exactly. And if those of us who want to get as close to a truly free society as is possible in this world want any movement in that direction, the ivory tower theorizing has to be backed with practical policy approaches that can get some frigging support in the general population. That means a goal of a draw down of troops within the context of somehow soothing the animosity we've spent decades creating in that part of the world, so if Iran does get nukes, they aren't likely to use them against the US. How the US and the USSR resolved their differences, while not perfect, can at least serve as a model. Continuous diplomatic engagement, common ground movements, weapons reduction, TRADE, however unfree it may be at first, etc. At the very least keep them talking long enough for their own extreme statism to collapse and leave us with a chance for a more reasonable leadership to engage.
leave us with a chance for a more reasonable leadership to engage.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."