 |
|
| FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more » |
Myles W › Comments
If someone threatens you with nuclear weapons, and if they have the means to follow through on the threat, and if they appear to be crazy and self-destructive, are you justified in taking them out by any means available, including, possibly, a nuclear first strike? Not sure, but I am thinking, maybe, yes. Counter-arguments?
Kol Tregaskes, Rob Michael (Atmos Trio), Josh Haley and 4 other people liked this
Yes, but you better be able to prove that they were actually willing to use them and prove that they were on the verge of doing so.
- Rob Haas
Why not apply the argument to all suspected criminals. Then we can close the courts and the Department of Justice and reduce the deficit. You can not do it because it is against International Law.
- Justice of the Piece
Preventative war is never acceptable. (Note that it is a different concept from pre-emptive war.)
- Andrew C
Ford made assassinations illegal in '76.
- Rob Haas
You better make sure that they cannot do anything to harm innocent civilians in the time it takes you to do something. In the case of North Korea, any "acts of war" would have grave consequences for South Korea and for our troops stationed there.
- Alex Scoble
Alex's point is a strong one. Didn't Von Clausewitz state that war is just an extension of politics? I would say that we are more in the right in this instance than we were in Iraq. I like Hawaii. Wet work is messy but we do have the assets and we obviously have no issue with regime change so why don't we just get it done. It doesn't have to be public or even acknowledged.
- Mathew A. Koeneker
a nuke first strike will harm innocents regardless. How about we look at the situation with an even hand. Why do N. Korea feel compelled to go ahead with a show of force like this? Is it because we as the western nations keep threatening/bullying them? Would a hearts and minds campaign be much more suitable? You can win wars without guns, you just need to find the reasoning behind the situation.
- alphaxion
And wher is China siding in all of this? They seem to be awfully quiet.
- Mathew A. Koeneker
I don't think that a nuke first strike is necessarily what Sean is talking about...there are all kinds of means in "by all means necessary".
- Alex Scoble
"are you justified in taking them out by any means available, including, possibly, a nuclear first strike?" I think he's saying should we consider anything, including a nuke strike.
- alphaxion
as I said, we need to ask "why do they feel the launch is required?". If it's because they feel threatened by us, what can we do to alleviate this?
- alphaxion
Right, but there's a whole lot of other means one can take.
- Alex Scoble
aye, was just saying that I don't think a nuke strike can ever be on the table and was suggesting another line of thought.
- alphaxion
And I'm not sure that they feel threatened by us. From an outsider's view, it looks more like they want something, whether it be respect, food aid, money, technological support, whatever and all these games are just a way for them to get us to give them whatever it is they want.
- Alex Scoble
And I disagree that a nuclear strike can never be on the table, if they actually hit Hawaii, Japan or South Korea with a nuke, we will have no choice but to nuke them back.
- Alex Scoble
"It is the avowed policy of our government to never strike first with nuclear weapons." -- President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove" ;-)
- Karim
Absolutely not. What is an option is take out the crazy and self-destructive leader. And even though Ford made it illegal in 1976, surely assassinations and other types of interventions have occurred.
- Rene Wirtz
Sean, consider that just a year ago (and for about the whole five years before that), the US could have been considered the world's first 'rogue superpower'. Launching illegal preventative wars, absolutely armed with nuclear capabilities, ... would any nation have been justified in 'taking them out by any means available'? Or is that option only for other nations?
- Andrew C
War is costly, Andrew. You have to be able to afford it to do it, both in terms of absolute costs and losses in population. And Rene, unfortunately we have no idea who would replace Kim Jong Ill as the leader (and he might already have been replaced, albeit quietly) so assassination isn't an ideal thing.
- Alex Scoble
Just like why we didn't assassinate Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war. If you can't control who the successor is, there's no reason to assassinate.
- Alex Scoble
Trust me Alex, I'm sure the US has someone lined up, and if not the US, China will. Of course, this will never get broadcast, because what better way to keep the threat level at orange by sustaining a false sense of an enemy. (Or maybe I'm just paranoid :P)
- Rene Wirtz
How would we have someone lined up? We have no intelligence in that country, we have no visibility in to the government there and we have no means of putting forth our own leader. We are quite unable to pierce their leadership curtain.
- Alex Scoble
+1 Alex. don't know what HUMINT is there but seriously doubt that whatever *is* there would be able to come up with casus belli. also going to war based on satellite photos is so 2003.
- Karim
We don't need to punish the entire country for the action of one or a handful of people. Smartbombs and Seal Teams people. #getitdone
- Mathew A. Koeneker
If you use _ANY_ means, and fail, you risk leaving yourself open to justifying a strike from the force you are attempting to suppress. Nuclear First strike isn't an option, but civil disrest and undermining is possibly an option, It's a very difficult thing to consider..
- Myles W
I'm not convinced that there is no intelligence on North Korea at all, I'm about 99.9% certain there is some sort of covert operation already in place. Besides, what if there is no leader in place, these things have a way of working out regardless, and if the US has forces on the ground they can actually influence that process. But, in any case, there is no such thing as a pre-emptive...
more...
- Rene Wirtz
What was unquestionably forbidden for nearly 60 years is now a question worth asking? This is the thinking that preemptive invasion leads us to *sigh*
- Michael W. May
Isn't this a bigger question of pragmatism vs. idealism? Utility vs. virtue? The problem that I have always had with these discussions is that it ignores an existential condition...only living creatures possess or act on virtues, thus in any case where lives are on the line, utilitarian and virtue ethics coincide: to preserve and maximize virtue, one must FIRST preserve and maximize...
more...
- Neal Jansons
Yes, certainly actually taking out the US would have been pretty much beyond the reach of any nation save possibly Russia, with its many many many nukes. I disagree about the differences in kind and degree, though. N. Korea threatens its neighbours rashly. The US basically invented a casus belli wholesale, then claimed preventative war was pre-emptive war, then proceeded to wage a...
more...
- Andrew C
Oh, I agree completely, Andrew. However, I think the general view of the developed nations is that only the choices they make and what happens to them counts. The US is an unacceptable risk to the Middle East, though due to their generally undeveloped status and recent (historically) decision to have a new Dark Ages, there isn't much they can do about it. But is the US an unacceptable...
more...
- Neal Jansons
BBC NEWS | Technology | Sites fail age verification check - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1...
bcultral liked this
"Children's charities are backing a plan to make web retailers ensure young people cannot buy age-restricted goods. A private members bill going through the House of Lords is calling for it to be mandatory for web retailers to adopt age verification systems. The bill on age-checking has the backing of charities who say it is too easy for children to buy alcohol, knives and violent video games online."
- alphaxion
from Bookmarklet
Erm.. Not just want.. but what the hell is a COMB doing there? >.< I'm assuming it's got a hidden blade somewhere?
- Myles W
Let's see what it looks like if you Nuke an area..
http://www.carloslabs.com/node... - Go here and you can enter a location and see the blast radius of various nukes.. thanks to http://www.postnukecomic.com/ for sauce
- Myles W
am I going nuts or do the links in google results turn into google links when you copy then paste them?
Penguin It's Cold Outside, Myles W, Joey Gibson and 2 other people liked this
I haven't seen that. I often cut-and-paste Google search result links to both keep Google from tracking what I click and to keep the destination from knowing the referrer.
- LogEx
Wow, I do it today and it looks like you are right. This merits more investigation.
- LogEx
It's when you are logged into a google account - log out and the link swapping goes away. And it's on click, so either left or right click prompts it.
- alphaxion
Yeah, I just discovered that too. Another reason to do Google searches from a browser that is not logged in.
- LogEx
I've always known that. I don't right click on links from google searches anymore, I go to the source and copy the Url from the browser. Can't bother logging out.
- Helen Sventitsky
I never noticed it before because I usually do my searches from a freshly opened and cleansed browser.
- LogEx
alpha's pointed this out to me, we tried to replicate this on my machine. I'm using an XP Machine, with Spybot S&D, and Scriptblock in Firefox, and this doesn't occur with either IE or FF. I'm wondering if this maybe is something to do with a setting within your Google account?
- Myles W
it's prolly a javascript from the look of it rather than a setting on the account. I'd be interested in finding out if it turned up with the roll out of the "social networking features".
- alphaxion
and I'm usually logged out, it's just this one time I left myself logged in that I noticed it.
- alphaxion
aha.. as myles snooped it out, it's the "web history" feature in your account settings.
- alphaxion
But I have web history (permanently) "paused" on all of my accounts. Never did trust that.
- LogEx
It doesn't matter if it's "paused", it'll still track it seems, just not 'log' it. You need to remove it going by into your Account settings, go to My products - Edit, and you should have an option to "Remove Web History permanently". I've done it and it doesn't replicate for me.. I tested this with a freshly created Gmail account, and this didn't happen until the "Web History" application was installed..
- Myles W
I always forget this when blogging, same with Google Reader on the iPhone!
- Joe Dawson
Myles, nice work!
- LogEx
Joe, I have a different solution for GReader. I have a separate account that I ONLY use for GReader, and then delete this account and start over on regular intervals (export OPML, hand edit some changes, then import it into new account).
- LogEx
the interesting thing is that I never picked the web history app and rarely log into gmail... so how on earth did it get to be there and find its way into being on? Mind you, the whole "opt out" thing with pausing it just reminds me of the way phorm works. Your traffic still logged and analysed, just you never get the results used against you.
- alphaxion
I thought Web History was originally opt-out, but then changed to opt-in. But yes, 'paused" should (in an ideal world) disable the tracking links rather than just not log them (which we assume happens in some opaque way).
- LogEx
When was it changed to opt in cause the account in question has only existed since the end of december
- alphaxion
Just went to google.com, sign-in, create an account now... you have to Uncheck the Enable Web History box to make it not happen on a new account.
- LogEx
aha. it's if you're logged in to your google account. No sign in, no link swapping the moment you click. Wonder what data they're harvesting
Other ways to read this feed:
