A Job for Bruce Z

[andyfox]

"I could rip virtually all of the arguments of the so-called 'experts' on this page to shreads on purely logical grounds with enough time and effort, without even being very well 'informed'. I intend to make it my business to do exactly that each and every time they try to use their illegitimate tactics to make anti-American statements."

Though I do not consider myself an "expert", in light of the above, I look forward to your comments about the following:

The notion common to nearly all Americans that no nuclear weapons have been used since Nagasaki is mistaken. Again and again, generally in secret from the American public, U.S. nuclear weapons have been used in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it at someone's head in a direct conforntation, whether or not the trigger is pulled.

What does it say to you, if anything, about the morality of a country that repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weaponry to get its way?

[clovenhoof]

I was thinking something like waiter. "The special tonight is the baby back ribs in Jack Daniels sauce. And by the way, did I tell you about Cyrus?"

'hoof

[Josh W]

I hate the other topics forum. Really. Unless it has to do with baseball. But I'm gonna say something now, that I'm sure I'll regret tomorrow.

The difference between pulling a gun and threatening with nuclear weapons is very large. Very. The US's 'bluffs' have been called in the past, and the weapons weren't used.

If I'm on a train, and a mugger comes on, pulls a gun, points it at some guy, says "gimme your money and jewelry", the victim says "no", and the mugger shrugs and moves on, then repeats this with a dozenish other riders before coming to me, I don't feel all that threatened. Now, when he comes to me, is he still 'using the gun'? Nope. He's not firing bullets, he's not threatening, he's not even using it as a paperweight.

If he knows people will end up not caring that he has this gun, is it still immoral to point it? What if he's joking? I mean, I've pulled a knife out of my pocket to show a friend, and jokingly said "gimme your money", but it was painfully obvious that I was joking. All parties involved knew there were no intentions. Was I immoral? Is there a difference?

Josh

[BruceZ]

look forward to your comments about the following:

The notion common to nearly all Americans that no nuclear weapons have been used since Nagasaki is mistaken. Again and again, generally in secret from the American public, U.S. nuclear weapons have been used in the precise way that a gun is used when you point it at someone's head in a direct conforntation, whether or not the trigger is pulled.

I see no logical problem with this passage.


What does it say to you, if anything, about the morality of a country that repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weaponry to get its way?

It says that the morality of this country does not preclude threatening to use nuclear weapons in this way. I assume you want me to assess whether such actions add to or detract from our morality. Here are the two relevant definitions of morality from my dictionary, and they are not the same:

morality n. ... The evaluation of or means of evaluating human conduct as: a. A set of ideas of right and wrong. b. A set of customs of a given society, class, or social group which regulate relationships and prescribe modes of behavior to enhance the group's survival.

As for definition b, we learn that morality is a set (oh boy, I know something about sets!) and any action which enhances our survival is an element of that set, hence the actions in question are an element of morality, and are said to be moral, to the extent that they in fact enhance our survival. Definition a allows that some actions may not be moral even if they do enhance our society's survival if they are deemed to be "wrong". Reading the definition of "moral" shows that you can replace "wrong" with "bad". I maintain that "wrong" and "bad" are arbitrary subjective conditions. My personal arbitrary assignment is to make "bad" anything which detracts from our survival, and "good" anything that enhances our survival. Hence for me the two definitions are the same, and the acts in question are moral acts.

[Chris Alger]

This assumes (1) that the bluffs aren't working on a 24/7 basis as a nuclear terror buttressing to US power, the way all things latent tend often "work"; and (2) that 50 years of no nuclear weapons being detonated (only recently without the extreme threat of massive retalliation) suggest that safety will prevail for the next 1,000 or 100,000 years, assuming we care about such things.

You touched on a more serious subject, one that has always plagued nuclear strategists: nuclear weapons have traditionally not been able to act as "weapons," defined as tools that can accomplish particular military objectives. If used, anything objective worth accomplishing becomes subject to greater risk, a catch-22. The military has always been uncomfortable with nukes for fear they'll be called upon to "use" them for something other than self-destruction, and be forced to admit they can't give any assurance that the purpose will be achieved, which suggests that the military doesn't even have a logical connection to nuclear weapons. Outside the military, there has been continuous skepticism about the "efficacy" of a huge nuclear program. It's as if we had these things only because we can, and aren't sure whether they accomplish anything other than kind of a background terror and increased risk of catastrophe. We've never had the ability to just "lob one" on the Kremlin or this month's bad guy.

The ongoing solution has been to build nuclear weapons that are more "usable," concentrating on smaller, more accurate, less vulnerable warheads and platforms coupled with high-tech defensive measures, like Star Wars. The logical end to this process will be a U.S. first-strke capability allowing nuclear detonations with complete, or at least acceptable, impunity.

The ability for a more "flexible" -- meaning detonatable -- nuclear force has been a long-term goal of the US for decades. A huge investment is now being undertaken to make it happen. I think the increased danger this poses is obvious, although perhaps not as dangerous as the absence of much debate.

[Ray Zee]

the only nuclear weapons we need are ones that can totally wipe out any country that attacks us or is in preparation to do so. and to let them know it. even if we bluff many times the fear that it will happen is strong. the only way to stop a regime is to let them know that all players in it will be gone the next morning. by this threat it forces negociation which is the final goal.