A Moral Dilemma

[patrickcaturday]

Question:



By what moral authority does one country or group of countries demand that another country not develop a weapon ( nuclear ) system that the ones doing the demanding already possess.

Example # 1 The US and other nuclear powers, through the UN demanding that North Korea either never develop a weapon or now that it has that it stop its program.

Example # 2 The US and Israel, both of which have nuclear weapons demand that Iran not develop one.

Some secondary topics;

1 ) Is there ever any moral reason for using Atomic weapons.

2 ) Is there ever any moral reason for possessing Atomic weapons

3 ) Is MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) a moral position

 

[uscitizen]

We have them so we say you cannot have them.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

A. Morality is a point of view.

B. What is moral/immoral depends on which cultural windows one looks through.

C. Meddlers don't prosper in the long run.

 

[depotoo]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

 

[Circe]

Question:



By what moral authority does one country or group of countries demand that another country not develop a weapon ( nuclear ) system that the ones doing the demanding already possess.

Example # 1 The US and other nuclear powers, through the UN demanding that North Korea either never develop a weapon or now that it has that it stop its program.

Example # 2 The US and Israel, both of which have nuclear weapons demand that Iran not develop one.

Some secondary topics;

1 ) Is there ever any moral reason for using Atomic weapons.

2 ) Is there ever any moral reason for possessing Atomic weapons

3 ) Is MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) a moral position

It's not about morals.

It's about power.

The moral nonsense is just to confuse the stupider part of the public, that's all. This isn't working especially well; neither is the prevention of the spread of nukes.

There is no use talking about morals and nuclear weapons. All weapons are always normalized, always. And they are always used. Might as well ask if it's moral to use German flamethrowers from World War I --- they are now a regular part of the world armaments, including American. So is poison gas from that same war: it was claimed to be used last week in Syria.

The very impressive effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs led to worldwide revulsion and eased the (till now) disarmament of the defeated powers, and also the quick nuking up of several great powers before these powers were able to put a stop to smaller powers getting these technically difficult weapons for a long time; that was never going to be forever, though.

The problem is that once smaller powers get nukes, of course they'll use them! And since the whole point of most diplomacy is delay of the inevitable, we've delayed and delayed the spread of nukes with a lot of talk about immorality, dah, dah, dah, but that is probably coming to an end, unfortunately.

Pax Americana is probably coming to an end. It lasted some 70 years, however, which is pretty good, historically.

 

[sealadaigh]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

not unlike the president of the united states of america, adolf hitler was also democratically elected.

if anything, the possession of nuclear weapons by one country is not a deterrent, but an incentive for those non-nuclear countries to develop them.

 

[depotoo]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

not unlike the president of the united states of america, adolf hitler was also democratically elected.

if anything, the possession of nuclear weapons by one country is not a deterrent, but an incentive for those non-nuclear countries to develop them.

It is a deterrent of use on an enemy...

 

[Circe]

if anything, the possession of nuclear weapons by one country is not a deterrent, but an incentive for those non-nuclear countries to develop them.

It's an interesting question, whether the genie could be put back in the bottle. Un-nuke the world.

I don't think so.

If we had a worldwide nuclear weapons ban, a lot of countries would simply make them but keep it sort of secret, the kind of open secret Israel's weapons are, or South Africa's were (they did supposedly give theirs up, but who knows?).

Is there ANY weapon that hasn't been normalized, that has successfully been banned? Maybe biologicals. But I for one wouldn't count on it, and IMO the first one that will be used aggressively will be smallpox. It would have to be done by promoting a smallpox scare in a third-world country, then quickly getting all one's own nationals vaccinated, then deploying the weapon.

Right now the world is divided into high-tech weapons like drones and nukes and advanced electronic artillery versus low-tech weapons like guerrilla fighters and IEDs in the roadways and of course the best modern weapon of all --- suicide bombers. Very stupid people being very smart bombs. That weapon actually has a long history: assassins in the Middle Ages, kamikazis in WWII, and now the Muslim suiciders.

 

[Circe]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

not unlike the president of the united states of america, adolf hitler was also democratically elected.

if anything, the possession of nuclear weapons by one country is not a deterrent, but an incentive for those non-nuclear countries to develop them.

It is a deterrent of use on an enemy...

Good point: nukes owned by other powers are an incentive for countries to develop nukes for themselves. They are a deterrent to using them, however.

Countries that are small and have a centralized capital and command are highly vulnerable to nukes: Israel, South Korea.

The United States is essentially invulnerable to nuclear war because we have many nukes in many places and we are way too large to knock out. That's why no one is paying much attention to North Korea's threats. If they tried to bomb something here, we would annihilate them, and there is no way they can damage us enough to stop that. We have a convincing deterrent. Other powers can hurt us, like bin Laden bombing New York, but they can never stop us.

Good reason for us not to split into parts, actually. The smaller the country, the more vulnerable.

 

[Rozman]

We have them so we say you cannot have them.

Imagine Iraq,Iran,Korea and Cuba had them and we didn't.
I know this is a Liberals wet dream but I would rather we had em and they didn't.

 

[whitehall]

The Rosenberg's went to the Chair for just that mindset.

 

[oldfart]

"A moral dilemma:"

A dilemma requires a difficult choice between two unpalatable choices. What are the choices you see in your dilemma and why are they unpalatable? Not every situation is a dilemma.

By what moral authority does one country or group of countries demand that another country not develop a weapon ( nuclear ) system that the ones doing the demanding already possess.

Your unstated premise is that moral criteria are or should be the basis for judging these situations. I believe that premise to be unfounded and mistaken. If you have a point to make, you might start by defending that premise.

1 ) Is there ever any moral reason for using Atomic weapons.

Yes, self-defense or to stop aggression for the first two.

2 ) Is there ever any moral reason for possessing Atomic weapons

As much as there is for using them. You are being repetitive. If there is no circumstance in which you would use such weapons, there is logically no reason to possess them. Capacity does not lead to deterrence when intent to use a weapon is not considered an option.

3 ) Is MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) a moral position

Since I am a Benthamite Utilitarian most of the time; Yes.

 

[Circe]

If there is no circumstance in which you would use such weapons, there is logically no reason to possess them. Capacity does not lead to deterrence when intent to use a weapon is not considered an option.

Nice replies, IMO: I too am puzzled at the premise that anything about atom bombs has to do with morals. Intraspecific evolution, surely; morals or ethics, no.

But there is a great deal of sand thrown in the eyes of the world by the have-nots, and younger people in particular may be confused.

I disagree with your quote above, respectfully: since there is indeed no logical reason to possess nukes if there is no circumstances in which they would be used, then clearly there ARE plans to use them in certain circumstances. And really, I think we all know what some of those circumstances are, if we lived through the Cold War, especially. It is true we would prefer not to be the SECOND power to used nukes as well as the first, but we will if we do.

But mostly I disagree with the idea that capacity does not lead to deterrence if intent is not an option. Capacity is ALWAYS the main (only) strategic concern. Because time passes and things change, particularly motivations. Intent can and does change overnight. Especially when leadership changes. Intent of a whole nation can change in less than a second, as when Gavril Princeps fired his gun at the Archduke in Sarejevo. Or when a large plane hit one of the Twin Towers in New York.

It is generally recognized that the USA would be very reluctant to be the second nation to use nukes, but it is also recognized that we have the world's most developed capacity to do so, and this deterrence protects us from a lot of adventurism by minor powers trying to get our attention, IMO.

 

[editec]

Question:



By what moral authority does one country or group of countries demand that another country not develop a weapon ( nuclear ) system that the ones doing the demanding already possess.

Nations neither have nor can they appeal to a higher moral authority for justification of anything they do or do not do.

Geopolitics is entirely an amoral exercise.

Some secondary topics;

1 ) Is there ever any moral reason for using Atomic weapons.

Not in my morality, but there is certainly PRAGMATIC justifications that might serve as nearly having moral justification.

2 ) Is there ever any moral reason for possessing Atomic weapons

Depends. Do you think survival is a moral issue?

3 ) Is MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) a moral position

[/QUOTE]

I didn't think so when it mattered.

You might be surprised to discover that Nikita Kruschev thought that MAD was IMMORAL when Robert S. McNamara explained to him that MAD was probably a better safeguard against nuclear war than anitmissile defence systems.

Happily for the world eventually Kruchev agreed that MAD was a better idea than getting involved in an ANTI MISSILE defense race.

Much as I hate to ever having been wrong about anything, I was WRONG when I thought that MAD was a bad idea.

We can thank the RAND institute's GAME THEORISTS for arrriving at the MAD policy which I suspect saved the world from nuclear holocaust.

Please note how MORALITY did NOT play a role in saving the world.

I think its important to note that.

Had Kruschev or MacNamara taken the moral POV?

Had we have been in an antimissile race instead of the MAD posture both nations took?

I suspect that state of affairs would have lead to nuclear annihilation

 

[M14 Shooter]

Question:
By what moral authority does one country or group of countries demand that another country not develop a weapon ( nuclear ) system that the ones doing the demanding already possess.

False premise, that the the position is claimed to be moral, and/or that it must be moral to be legitinate.

1 ) Is there ever any moral reason for using Atomic weapons.

Yep. To end a war as quickly as possible, thereby reducing casualties on both sides.

2 ) Is there ever any moral reason for possessing Atomic weapons

Yep. See above

3 ) Is MAD a moral position

See: false premise, above.
Aside from that - deterrence works, as evidenced by the fact that we're still here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

not unlike the president of the united states of america, adolf hitler was also democratically elected.

Hitler was 'elected' in the same sense that US Supreme Court justices are elected.

 

[sealadaigh]

I guess you have never heard of crazed dictators in the past, have you? I guess you have never heard that by the US possessing such weapons, as they are not looking to overtake the rest of the earth, it has been a deterrent to those crazed dictators from doing crazed things hoping for just that...

not unlike the president of the united states of america, adolf hitler was also democratically elected.

Hitler was 'elected' in the same sense that US Supreme Court justices are elected.

well, that's not true. how about i move away from the president is elected and instead we compromise and say hitler was elected similarly to the way churchhill and netanyahu were chosen to be heads of state by a democratically elected parliament.

whatever it is/was, my point was is that a democratic election of a leader is no assurance that that leader will not become a "dictator".

i am not sure it makes any dierence to this discussion other than people think nukes are a deterrent. i was assigned to a nuclear capable artillery battalion after vietnam and from my little experience, i did not regard nukes as a deterrent. we didn't care.

 

[PaulS1950]

The USA is the only country to have ever deployed a nuclear weapon. We were the first and so far the last. Each sovereign nation has a right to defend itself with whatever weapons they deem necessary. Am I for Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons? No! I don't trust them but we cannot and should not prevent them from having them just because a bunch of well armed bullies agreed that no other nation should have them. If any country uses nuclear weapons as a first strike what should be done about it?
I think the country should be removed from the world. A well planned attack could take those small countries off the map in about a week without the use of nuclear weapons. If North Korea fires a weapon at another country they could effectively be removed from the map and there would be one Korea. China would never support such actions but would they be willing to go to war over the swift action? I doubt it because they don't want to support the use of nuclear arms anymore than the rest of the world.
This is analagous to a person who has never commited a crime wanting a firearm. This person has a history of bullying and shouting but nothing criminal. So he us elligible to own a gun. If he uses that gun to threaten someone or in any illegal manner then he can be arrested and sent to jail.
If Korea breaks international law then they can be dealt with but there is nothing we should do to prevent them from gaining a weapong to defend themselves. Since 1945 nuclear weapons have been the only defense against those who had them. In that sense they are defensive weapons. (until they are used offensively)