innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
We both know the answer to a question put on those terms. But the question fails to account for the increased likelihood of a nation that feels protected by some anti-missile defence precipitating a situation where nuclear weapons are used. While a successful defence can be expected to reduce damage by shooting down the missiles before they hit their targets, it also increases the likelihood of that situation happening. Avoiding war altogether would be better.
I’m also not convinced that neutral countries and Russia in particular, could safely be expected not to overreact to what, form their point of view, might very well be an attack. When you have nuclear forces permanently on alert and with short reaction times, the unthinkable becomes possible. Quite a few close calls have been reported during the Cold War.
Because your example was not comparable with the case we were discussing. It’s an artificial, unrealistic situation, reminiscent of a certain lousy TV series…
While the utilitarian answer to your question is obvious (but that doesn’t necessarily make it morally correct), the issue we are arguing is a real world, complex one, with no such clear cut options. We’re not arguing only about whether to use a missile defence system, but about the consequences of installing one in the first place.
My opinion on the missile defence issue is that building it increases the likelihood of a war involving nuclear weapons, and that it’s better to accept a low risk of nuclear war without anti-missile defences than an increased risk of such a war with said defences. We will never agree even on how to quantify this risk, so I’ll be content with exposing this opinion and finishing the discussion.
But I will add, about the morality issue, that I don’t find the idea of trading 10 lives for 100 lives morally defensible. Wars, like everything else, have rules. For example, willingly killing 1000 enemy civilians to avoid whatever number of military casualties among your own is still officially a war crime. And killing a few thousand civilians in a neutral country to make a current war easier for your side is also a war crime (unprovoked attack against a neutral country). Those are still the current rules. Under these rules shooting down a nuclear missile over a neutral country would be a war crime, if it killed people on that country. Regardless of how many of your own citizens you would be saving. I guess you could claim that the country in question was “allowing” the passage of an enemy missile…
Of course, in the age of total war this has become outdated morality - if it ever was current. Governments can plan mass killings with the ever-useful excuse that they are saving people’s lives. They can expose their citizens to risk in order to save them. They can ignore the value of foreign citizen’s lives when those foreigners are weak and unimportant, exercising power over them without any kind of legitimacy. Please, don’t talk about morality to defend any government’s plans. Government have proved time and again that they don't care about morality.
I’m also not convinced that neutral countries and Russia in particular, could safely be expected not to overreact to what, form their point of view, might very well be an attack. When you have nuclear forces permanently on alert and with short reaction times, the unthinkable becomes possible. Quite a few close calls have been reported during the Cold War.
Because your example was not comparable with the case we were discussing. It’s an artificial, unrealistic situation, reminiscent of a certain lousy TV series…
While the utilitarian answer to your question is obvious (but that doesn’t necessarily make it morally correct), the issue we are arguing is a real world, complex one, with no such clear cut options. We’re not arguing only about whether to use a missile defence system, but about the consequences of installing one in the first place.
My opinion on the missile defence issue is that building it increases the likelihood of a war involving nuclear weapons, and that it’s better to accept a low risk of nuclear war without anti-missile defences than an increased risk of such a war with said defences. We will never agree even on how to quantify this risk, so I’ll be content with exposing this opinion and finishing the discussion.
But I will add, about the morality issue, that I don’t find the idea of trading 10 lives for 100 lives morally defensible. Wars, like everything else, have rules. For example, willingly killing 1000 enemy civilians to avoid whatever number of military casualties among your own is still officially a war crime. And killing a few thousand civilians in a neutral country to make a current war easier for your side is also a war crime (unprovoked attack against a neutral country). Those are still the current rules. Under these rules shooting down a nuclear missile over a neutral country would be a war crime, if it killed people on that country. Regardless of how many of your own citizens you would be saving. I guess you could claim that the country in question was “allowing” the passage of an enemy missile…
Of course, in the age of total war this has become outdated morality - if it ever was current. Governments can plan mass killings with the ever-useful excuse that they are saving people’s lives. They can expose their citizens to risk in order to save them. They can ignore the value of foreign citizen’s lives when those foreigners are weak and unimportant, exercising power over them without any kind of legitimacy. Please, don’t talk about morality to defend any government’s plans. Government have proved time and again that they don't care about morality.
