X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:22:15 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Peace through superior firepower?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Are nuke weapons used to deter war moral?

Inanimate objects do not have inherent moral qualities; posession of an
inanimate object is not a moral issue either. Posession of desire to
cause harm to others, or the willingness to allow harm to come to others
by default/inaction is a moral issue.

Just ask andy - guns don't deter people... people deter people. B)

>You could use the Machivelian approach, the end justifies the means--end=peace
>means=through threat. Looking at it from a realistic approach, one could say
>that history was based on war and threat

Realistically, one could say that the use of this generalization encourages
a very shallow view of history; one might wish to investigate the root
causes of these conflicts.

>--there was and there will be no such
>thing as "utopia" because humanity has a violent and unpeaceful urge.

Which urge would that be? Violence for its own sake?

>Therefore,
>if nuke weapons do the job to stop countries from blowing each other up, it's
>got to be moral. Therefore the possession of nuke weapons is moral: it's the
>most realistic and safe way to insure that you don't get blown up. Look, if
>it takes owning a nuke to stop others from nuking you, it's got to be moral
>because it provides for peace and safety--everyone values peace and safety.

Nuke weapons are used to enforce a world order that ensures that (for example)
small African nations will be exploited by powerful (nuke owning) nations
and that there will be occasional bouts of mass starvation/political unrest
(which can be attributed to a large degree to the exploitative policies of the
nuke owner nations) that will cause hundreds of thousands of people to meet
untimely if not grisly deaths.

Therefore nukes are immoral.

>Case study: Israel. Israel's got the bomb--if you remeber the Tom Leherer song,
>"Who's Next," you might remember the line: "The Lord's Our Shepard, believe in
>G-d, but just in case we'd better get the bomb."--all precations must be taken.
>The only reason wh the plethora of Arab nations at war with Israel don't attack
>Israel is because Israel's got the bomb. Israel doesn't really have the
>intention of blowing up the first country that threatens her, rather it intends
>to show off the bomb. No matter what you think of the Middle-East peace talks,
>what keeps the middle-east from blowing itself to pieces and remaining at a
>relative peace is a strong Israel.

Let's see Israel's got the bomb, her neighbors don't, the *only* thing that
stops her neighbors from attacking is Israel's nuke...

So what is it that prevents Israel from attacking her neighbors? After all
they couldn't retaliate in kind... Why is not the entire Middle East called
Israel? Could this issue be more complicated than mere ownership of nukes?

>Threat or no threat, right or wrong, the bomb keeps the world balanced and at
>bay. Keeping a warring and violent world at relative bay is a decent thing to
>do Therefore, one may say that Nuke Weapons used as a deterent to attack are
>moral.

Wouldn't it be more prudent at this juncture (gotta use that phrase while
the as... er, guy is still in office) to look into the root causes of
violence and do something about them?


>Later,
>Lance

-other Andy