From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:51:59 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>(Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
>>
>>It is not "being perceived as a nice guy" it is being a
>>reasonable well-adjusted human being rather than a paranoid that
>>believes it justifiable to kill any who might conceivably be a
>>threat. It is roughly the difference between civilization and
>>the jungle. Also, I do not believe for a minute that we can
>>hold such preemptive use of deadly force attitudes and survive
>>even the level of technology we already have much less what is
>>on the way.
>
>
> That's actually a very important point: the level of technology
> does make a lot of difference. Years ago, when technology and
> the world economy was such that the only actors capable of doing
> major damage to a country as a whole were other countries, and
> the very first attack was unlikely to be decisive, it made sense
> to think of defense in terms of countries, and to have a policy
> of not attacking until attacked first.
Actually, I argue that no small entity today is really capable
of doing "major damage to the country as a whole". Taking out
a city is about the extend of realistic damage. Biological
attacks are actually rather difficult to do on a large scale
successfully. The story may be different when/if we have full
MNT. But we aren't there yet.
>
> At today's level of technology, we're on the edge: clearly now
> small non-nation groups can cause serious damage and have done
> so,
That depends on what you call "serious", doesn't it? Compared
to countries at war the death of a few thousand may not qualify
as "serious" for the purpose of justifying attack on other
countries not at war with us and which did not claim credit for
such an attack and who were not provably linked to the attack.
> so the age of "countries" is past. But it's probably still
Your argument so far does not justify that conclusion yet.
> the case that a first strike won't be devastating, so we're
> probably still not justified in attacking someone like Hussein
> who is unlikely to directly cause us great harm, and doesn't
> really have the means to even if he wanted to. But imagine
> moving just a little bit into a very likely future, where a
> weapon technology exists that would make it possible for a
> single person or small group to create and deploy a weapon that
> would cause major damage to an entire country without warning.
I suggest we deal with that when we get there and not use it to
establish policy today.
> If a person existed that were clearly mentally ill, had a
> history of violence, had the means to deploy such a weapon, and
> a clearly expressed irrational hatred for a certain people, I
> would hardly blame those people for eliminating that clear
> danger to their very existence at a lower level of threat--
> say, proof that he had negotiated to buy materials for that
> weapon--rather than waiting for a devastating loss.
>
Sure, but such hypotheticals are not currently applicable.
Generally speaking, buying the means of defense/offense is not
the same as being subject to justifiable elimination. At
today's understanding, for a nation or even group to seek such
means might even be the height of prudence as a deterrent
against attack.
> An actionable threat requires all three of means, credible
> intent, and immediacy. Clearly it can't be justified to react
> to a threat that doesn't have the means to destroy you, or that
> hasn't clearly expressed intent to, or that hasn't done
> something to make you reasonably fear for your existence /now/,
> when the decision has to be made. But if all three of those
> are indeed present, I would consider standing idle not to be
> civilized restraint, but suicidal foolishness.
>
Of course this would be only if the soon-to-be target of your
civilized consideration is not capable of effective and overly
expensive self-defense against your attack or the target's
allies are not so capable. In short, this is not a game played
among equals.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:55:11 MDT