March 8, 2008
Antiwar.com, original HERE...
by Charley Reese
Sometimes President Bush sounds like an idiot. The most recent example is his statement that he still believes the Palestinians and Israelis can reach a peace agreement before the end of his term.
This comes on the heels of an Israeli attack against Gaza that killed more than 100 people, most of them innocent civilians. It was a reprisal attack for a few rockets fired into Israel by some Hamas hotheads. In World War II, when the Germans killed civilians as a reprisal for an attack on their forces, it was called a war crime.
Yet President Bush and the world's most ineffective secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, can barely force themselves to say, in effect, "Tut, tut, tut. Can't you folks get along?"
If the Palestinian rockets were slaughtering Israelis, no one could complain. Even an occupying power has a right to defend itself. But these rockets, unguided, more often than not land where people aren't. According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, only 13 Israelis have been killed by these rockets in the past seven years. Hamas says the rockets are in response to Israeli attacks; the Israelis say the reprisal raid is in response to the rocket attacks.
Such circular action-reactions remind one of the wisecrack that if the world practices the old Hebrew "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" philosophy, the world would soon be blind and toothless. Unless the Israelis are willing to do as the Romans did and exterminate every Palestinian man, woman and child, they can't kill their way to peace. And neither can the Palestinians.
The guilty party in this dance of death is the Bush administration, which absolutely refuses to put even the least pressure on the Israelis. Israel has all the power. The Israelis are to the Palestinians like a 250-pound wrestler assaulting a 4-year-old child. Without pressure from the U.S., the Israeli government will go right on killing Palestinians, taking their land and expanding Israeli settlements. And Palestinians, weak as they are (they have no army, no air force, no navy, no country and no international help because the U.S. blocks all such attempts), will go right on resisting as best they can.
The Israelis are rearing a whole new generation of terrorists. When these Palestinian kids grow to manhood amid the chaos, humiliation, death and poverty the Israelis forced on them, they're going to be some mean, tough individuals unlikely to be particular about on whom or how they wreak their vengeance. We're growing our own crop of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Israelis are short-term pragmatists. Their philosophy is that if someone is too weak to take something, why give it to him? They believe that as long as they can control the U.S. government, tap into its wealth and technology and hide behind its veto at the United Nations, there is no need for them to make any concessions at all. This has certainly worked for them in the short term.
In the long term, however, the Israelis are committing national suicide, just as one of their military intelligence people said. Sooner or later, General Birthrate and his armies will overwhelm them. The only way a small Jewish state can survive in the long run among a sea of Arabs is to get along with its neighbors. Other than the neighbors we bribe – Jordan and Egypt – all of the neighbors hate Israel.
The United States should stop the $3 billion annual gift to the Israelis and tell them that as of now, the U.S. will no longer protect them from United Nations sanctions or criticism with our veto. Israel is quick to say it is a sovereign and independent country; well, it's time the U.S. put that to the test.
If there is any part of the world where our policy should be trade and nothing else, it is the Middle East.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
FOCUS: A world free of nuclear weapons -- a dream?
Kyodo World Service
STAFF
Feb 18, 2008
Can we make a world free of nuclear weapons?
If you are involved in shaping security policy, you would say, ''Unfortunately no. The world is not such an easy place.''
And you can explain why the United States and other powers need nuclear weapons to deter rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, and hostile nations like China and Russia, and to attack al-Qaida's underground headquarters.
''They are all wrong,'' 87-year-old George Shultz, architect of the Ronald Reagan administration's foreign policy, said in a recent interview. ''These weapons come to be unusable by civilized people and with the spread of nuclear weapons and the threat of them falling into the hands of terrorists, I think the concept of deterrence deteriorates.''
One year ago, Shultz, along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sum Nunn, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, ''A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,'' and proposed to the U.S. president and leaders of other nuclear weapon countries ''setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.''
What made Shultz, Reagan's secretary of state and the mastermind of the U.S. Cold War policies, and other Cold War warriors advocate a nuclear free world? Have they become peaceniks in their older years?
''It's something that I have felt was desirable for a long time,'' Shultz said at his home in the penthouse of a San Francisco high-rise apartment building. When Ronald Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev, then general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1987, making a world free of nuclear weapons was put on the table and ''those two leaders fundamentally agreed that was a good idea.''
But of course at that time there was a very negative reaction from militaries in both countries. They argued that nuclear weapons were the key to mutual deterrence. ''The subject has kind of languished. It's fallen off the table,'' Shultz said.
Shultz said he thinks nuclear weapons are ''immoral.'' Even in the Cold War when mutual deterrence was believed to have prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from going to war, Shultz said nuclear weapons made him feel uneasy.
He posed the question, ''What would I say to the president if I were in his office and he asked me my advice in using a nuclear weapon, knowing that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people are killed and who thinks they are in position to make that kind of decision?''
Shultz and his friends revitalized the idea of abolishing nuclear weapons and proposed concrete steps on the 20th anniversary of the Reykjavik summit. The spread of nuclear weapon technology to Iran and North Korea forced them to recognize the urgency of the proposal.
With increasing worries about global warming, the idea of expanding nuclear power has been embraced by many countries, but ''if you can enrich the uranium for a power plant, you can enrich it for a weapon. When you get through with the spent fuel, it's reprocessed and becomes plutonium and that's a basis of a bomb,'' Shultz said.
Some U.S. security experts argued that the proposal risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute to U.S. security and international stability. Shultz simply said, ''There is plenty of power,'' meaning nonnuclear weapons, and if you wanted to use it, you could do severe deterrent-type damage. He asked people believing in nuclear weapons, ''Would you really lay a nuclear weapon into North Korea and wipe out Pyongyang?''
So what can we do to deter North Korea and Iran, which are said to aspire to having nuclear weapons? Shultz said that the best option is to ''change the scene so that having a nuclear weapon is a problem for countries, not a boon to them...the nuclear club should be abolished and anybody who has a nuclear weapon is the enemy of mankind, so let's get rid of them.''
He said if the international community starts moving toward abolishing nuclear weapons, then it can strongly tell countries to give them up.
President George W. Bush's administration seems to have a different idea. In 2002 it released ''Nuclear Posture Review,'' which reiterated the nuclear deterrence and called for new types of small and penetrating nuclear weapons.
''That's the way you get proliferation. I disagree,'' Shultz said.
Another disagreement concerns the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Bush administration and the Republican Party oppose ratification of the treaty on the grounds that it cannot verify other countries' secret nuclear testing. But Shultz said, ''The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a good treaty. We should ratify it.''
After one year of discussion, Shultz and his group contributed another article on the same subject to the Wall Street Journal last month and disclosed that Madeline Albright, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Christopher, Robert McNamara and Collin Powell indicated general support.
Gorbachev wrote his own essay in the Journal and said, ''It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious.''
Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy of the Center for American Progress, said, ''People with such a long history of support for nuclear weapons are now declaring not only that we should reduce nuclear stockpiles but actually eliminate them. This is stunning, a dramatic change of the elite's opinion in the U.S.''
But we cannot know when ''a world free of nuclear weapons'' might become a reality. Shultz likened the question to his experience in the construction industry. Overlooking San Francisco Bay, Shultz said, when somebody tells you to build a bridge across the bay here, that's a hard problem. But ''if you work at it continuously, it turns out you can produce (the bridge),'' he said. ''It's attitude.''
Shultz also had thoughts about recent discussions in Japan that the country should possibly possess nuclear weapons.
A world free of nuclear weapons ''would mean a world with less military force. So that would be an environment in which the Japanese would feel very comfortable,'' he said, adding, ''Japan has to think about its demography. Japan's labor force is shrinking, so the more you spend on the military, the less you can spend on your standard of living.''
NOTE:
There is no question from a moral perspective (i.e traditional morality per the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis) that nuclear weapons are inherently evil. They are incapable of differentiating between innocent non-combatants and armed enemy forces. This of course assumes that it is still possible in light of the incredibly indiscriminate and destructive nature of modern conventional warfare to participate in a "just war" in which a nation (as a last resort) is forced to defend itself against unjust offensive aggression. Clearly some high-tech conventional weaponry is also immoral for similar reasons. I reserve that discusion for another day.
Given that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, nuclear weapons by their very nature (both strategic and tactical) must be ruled out on categorical grounds; i.e. they are morally illicit even as part of a just war in which the innocent party has only mounted a defense against aggression. That being the case, all the original nuclear weapons states (NWS's) should proceed with their NPT promised agreement to progressively disarm (which of course includes the United States). This undoubtedly would require great courage and political leadership but the moral case is not at all difficult to make.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
STAFF
Feb 18, 2008
Can we make a world free of nuclear weapons?
If you are involved in shaping security policy, you would say, ''Unfortunately no. The world is not such an easy place.''
And you can explain why the United States and other powers need nuclear weapons to deter rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, and hostile nations like China and Russia, and to attack al-Qaida's underground headquarters.
''They are all wrong,'' 87-year-old George Shultz, architect of the Ronald Reagan administration's foreign policy, said in a recent interview. ''These weapons come to be unusable by civilized people and with the spread of nuclear weapons and the threat of them falling into the hands of terrorists, I think the concept of deterrence deteriorates.''
One year ago, Shultz, along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sum Nunn, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, ''A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,'' and proposed to the U.S. president and leaders of other nuclear weapon countries ''setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.''
What made Shultz, Reagan's secretary of state and the mastermind of the U.S. Cold War policies, and other Cold War warriors advocate a nuclear free world? Have they become peaceniks in their older years?
''It's something that I have felt was desirable for a long time,'' Shultz said at his home in the penthouse of a San Francisco high-rise apartment building. When Ronald Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev, then general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1987, making a world free of nuclear weapons was put on the table and ''those two leaders fundamentally agreed that was a good idea.''
But of course at that time there was a very negative reaction from militaries in both countries. They argued that nuclear weapons were the key to mutual deterrence. ''The subject has kind of languished. It's fallen off the table,'' Shultz said.
Shultz said he thinks nuclear weapons are ''immoral.'' Even in the Cold War when mutual deterrence was believed to have prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from going to war, Shultz said nuclear weapons made him feel uneasy.
He posed the question, ''What would I say to the president if I were in his office and he asked me my advice in using a nuclear weapon, knowing that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people are killed and who thinks they are in position to make that kind of decision?''
Shultz and his friends revitalized the idea of abolishing nuclear weapons and proposed concrete steps on the 20th anniversary of the Reykjavik summit. The spread of nuclear weapon technology to Iran and North Korea forced them to recognize the urgency of the proposal.
With increasing worries about global warming, the idea of expanding nuclear power has been embraced by many countries, but ''if you can enrich the uranium for a power plant, you can enrich it for a weapon. When you get through with the spent fuel, it's reprocessed and becomes plutonium and that's a basis of a bomb,'' Shultz said.
Some U.S. security experts argued that the proposal risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute to U.S. security and international stability. Shultz simply said, ''There is plenty of power,'' meaning nonnuclear weapons, and if you wanted to use it, you could do severe deterrent-type damage. He asked people believing in nuclear weapons, ''Would you really lay a nuclear weapon into North Korea and wipe out Pyongyang?''
So what can we do to deter North Korea and Iran, which are said to aspire to having nuclear weapons? Shultz said that the best option is to ''change the scene so that having a nuclear weapon is a problem for countries, not a boon to them...the nuclear club should be abolished and anybody who has a nuclear weapon is the enemy of mankind, so let's get rid of them.''
He said if the international community starts moving toward abolishing nuclear weapons, then it can strongly tell countries to give them up.
President George W. Bush's administration seems to have a different idea. In 2002 it released ''Nuclear Posture Review,'' which reiterated the nuclear deterrence and called for new types of small and penetrating nuclear weapons.
''That's the way you get proliferation. I disagree,'' Shultz said.
Another disagreement concerns the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Bush administration and the Republican Party oppose ratification of the treaty on the grounds that it cannot verify other countries' secret nuclear testing. But Shultz said, ''The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a good treaty. We should ratify it.''
After one year of discussion, Shultz and his group contributed another article on the same subject to the Wall Street Journal last month and disclosed that Madeline Albright, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Christopher, Robert McNamara and Collin Powell indicated general support.
Gorbachev wrote his own essay in the Journal and said, ''It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious.''
Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy of the Center for American Progress, said, ''People with such a long history of support for nuclear weapons are now declaring not only that we should reduce nuclear stockpiles but actually eliminate them. This is stunning, a dramatic change of the elite's opinion in the U.S.''
But we cannot know when ''a world free of nuclear weapons'' might become a reality. Shultz likened the question to his experience in the construction industry. Overlooking San Francisco Bay, Shultz said, when somebody tells you to build a bridge across the bay here, that's a hard problem. But ''if you work at it continuously, it turns out you can produce (the bridge),'' he said. ''It's attitude.''
Shultz also had thoughts about recent discussions in Japan that the country should possibly possess nuclear weapons.
A world free of nuclear weapons ''would mean a world with less military force. So that would be an environment in which the Japanese would feel very comfortable,'' he said, adding, ''Japan has to think about its demography. Japan's labor force is shrinking, so the more you spend on the military, the less you can spend on your standard of living.''
NOTE:
There is no question from a moral perspective (i.e traditional morality per the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis) that nuclear weapons are inherently evil. They are incapable of differentiating between innocent non-combatants and armed enemy forces. This of course assumes that it is still possible in light of the incredibly indiscriminate and destructive nature of modern conventional warfare to participate in a "just war" in which a nation (as a last resort) is forced to defend itself against unjust offensive aggression. Clearly some high-tech conventional weaponry is also immoral for similar reasons. I reserve that discusion for another day.
Given that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, nuclear weapons by their very nature (both strategic and tactical) must be ruled out on categorical grounds; i.e. they are morally illicit even as part of a just war in which the innocent party has only mounted a defense against aggression. That being the case, all the original nuclear weapons states (NWS's) should proceed with their NPT promised agreement to progressively disarm (which of course includes the United States). This undoubtedly would require great courage and political leadership but the moral case is not at all difficult to make.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Monday, February 11, 2008
What Ever Happened to: War of Necessity Only?
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
Once upon a time it was part of conventional wisdom--based as it was in the "golden rule ethic" that "picking a fight" was immoral--whether by nation states or individuals. This moral tenet flowed from the first and second principles (of right reason) of the Natural Law: 1) do good/avoid evil and 2) treat your neighbor fairly--summarized by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
When/where the golden rule ethic still reigned, it was understood that even though one could legitimately defend oneself against aggression, it was always and everywhere morally wrong to instigate hostilities. That is to say, it is always morally licit to defend against aggression but never to cause it.
Several fundamental underlying assumptions are basic to understanding the “golden rule” as it is applied to war.
First,in traditional (scholastic) moral philosophy one assumes that human nature is fixed and not changing that is to say, all human beings are deemed to be of equal worth and their essence (nature or quiddity [what-ness]) is constant i.e. unchanging.[1] For the unlikely few who would object, it is important to note that there is no empirical (scientific) data to suggest that human nature is changing—cumulative evidence establishes the opposite (man remains the same "fallen creature" he has always been in spite of our modern scientific and technological accomplishments). Of course Divine Revelation calls for a fixed human nature as well.[2] Thus there are no defensible bases on which to assert that all human beings are not of equal worth which do not reduce to vacuous claims of unwarranted entitlement.
While a “fixed human nature” may conflict with what radical Darwinists who embrace metaphysical naturalism may propound, such a view is a philosophical not scientific notion and an incoherent one at that. The very notion that it would be possible to determine right and wrong--if human nature is constantly changing—is pure fantasy. Only if human nature is fixed does it become possible to hold that right and wrong in the moral sense exists or is discernible. If human nature is evolving; then right and wrong is evolving as well—a situation which is unintelligible. Under such a circumstance, virtually any behavior is justifiable since it can be effectively argued that some people are more evolved than others and therefore their behavior no matter how apparently objectionable is also acceptable. This leads to complete social Darwinism—survival of the fittest where “might” alone “makes right”—a prescription for total moral anarchy.
Second, any moral philosophy worthy of the name must include the notion of universality—that is, its moral tenets must be applicable to all human beings—a reality which flows from the existence of a fixed human nature (anthropology). If this is not the case, it becomes impossible to determine right and wrong at all. Identical behavior(s) can be considered morally acceptable by one person and not another or by one nation but not another simply by refusing to apply the relevant moral principles universally. What otherwise would always and everywhere be wrong for example might be right for some but wrong for others simply because of who it is that is performing the moral calculus in question--an example of the complete moral relativism which is so common in our age--nevermind the fact that it is contradictory (self-referentially absurd). Under these unfortunate circumstances, “intent” is allowed to become controlling since it can make behavior which is obviously wrong appear justifiable. Such a situation is very common in contemporary International Relations where the classical tripartite Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis (means, ends, and circumstances) that is, moral calculus has been abandoned for rank Utilitarianism—too often resulting in obvious moral injustices.
Starting with the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States discarded a 2000+ year old golden rule ethical proscription against starting wars of aggression in which only legitimate defense not offense was understood to be acceptable—i.e. defensive war as a last resort only! It is difficult to overestimate just how radical this notion is. Particularly troublesome is the fact that the attacks themselves--in the words of Osama bin Laden--were the result of perceived immoral behavior on our part--the unilateral support of Israel over the Palestinian Arabs including our dismissal of their terrible plight and our garrisoning of US forces in the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina; apparently contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed among other things.
While the intentional killing of innocent human beings (as occurred on 9/11) can never be morally justified, it would be foolish of us not to recognize that our behavior abroad can have disastrous consequences when we fail to consider our actions in terms of the two principles outlined above. That is to say; Palestinian Arabs are unwilling to accept that their lives are not worth as much as are Israelis and rightfully so since all human beings by virtue of their fixed human nature are equally valuable--by first principles if any are valuable at all. For Theists and particularly Christian Theists this is axiomatic of course because man is created in the image of God (Imago Dei). Moreover, we would by the principle of universality detest the stationing of foreign troops on our land and thus the fact that Muslim Arabs do as well is completely understandable. To suggest otherwise is irrational and or dishonest in the extreme.
For anyone to allege that the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner could under any conceivable set of circumstances be morally licit (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all have done so) is to completely depart from the golden rule ethic which has governed humanity for over 2 millennia. By their very nature, both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons intentionally kill innocent human beings. This is virtually 100% certain from an objective perspective and therefore provides the moral certitude required in performing the relevant moral calculus. Under no circumstances can nuclear weapons be used offensively. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that they could ever be utilized defensively either due to the fact that they invariably would be associated with the killing of innocent non-combatants.[3] While conventional weapons are potentially useable in a morally licit way (for defensive purposes only), from a moral perspective, it is clear that the use of nuclear weapons under any set of circumstances is morally prohibitive due to the moral certitude that doing so always results in the intentional killing of innocent human beings and in tremendous numbers.
We have over the past 7+ years in a sense crossed the Rubicon where the waging of war is concerned, meaning we have stepped over the “red-line.” It has now become acceptable ala the “Bush Doctrine” to instigate offensive wars of aggression based on nothing more than a probability calculation that a given country might someday under certain imagined circumstances represent an actual or imminent threat to American national security or survival. This cannot be justified or accepted when subjected to rational/traditional (scholastic) moral philosophical precepts and must be rejected by all human beings of good will.
ENDNOTES:
[1] This in no way means that all human beings have equal talents and abilities.
[2] All the major Theistic belief systems ascribe to this view.
[3] It is impossible for the author to see how such a use could avoid the mass intentional killing of innocent human beings. It is not legitimate to argue that such killing would represent so-called “collateral damage “since it would be completely foreseeable and thus avoidable.
Once upon a time it was part of conventional wisdom--based as it was in the "golden rule ethic" that "picking a fight" was immoral--whether by nation states or individuals. This moral tenet flowed from the first and second principles (of right reason) of the Natural Law: 1) do good/avoid evil and 2) treat your neighbor fairly--summarized by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
When/where the golden rule ethic still reigned, it was understood that even though one could legitimately defend oneself against aggression, it was always and everywhere morally wrong to instigate hostilities. That is to say, it is always morally licit to defend against aggression but never to cause it.
Several fundamental underlying assumptions are basic to understanding the “golden rule” as it is applied to war.
First,in traditional (scholastic) moral philosophy one assumes that human nature is fixed and not changing that is to say, all human beings are deemed to be of equal worth and their essence (nature or quiddity [what-ness]) is constant i.e. unchanging.[1] For the unlikely few who would object, it is important to note that there is no empirical (scientific) data to suggest that human nature is changing—cumulative evidence establishes the opposite (man remains the same "fallen creature" he has always been in spite of our modern scientific and technological accomplishments). Of course Divine Revelation calls for a fixed human nature as well.[2] Thus there are no defensible bases on which to assert that all human beings are not of equal worth which do not reduce to vacuous claims of unwarranted entitlement.
While a “fixed human nature” may conflict with what radical Darwinists who embrace metaphysical naturalism may propound, such a view is a philosophical not scientific notion and an incoherent one at that. The very notion that it would be possible to determine right and wrong--if human nature is constantly changing—is pure fantasy. Only if human nature is fixed does it become possible to hold that right and wrong in the moral sense exists or is discernible. If human nature is evolving; then right and wrong is evolving as well—a situation which is unintelligible. Under such a circumstance, virtually any behavior is justifiable since it can be effectively argued that some people are more evolved than others and therefore their behavior no matter how apparently objectionable is also acceptable. This leads to complete social Darwinism—survival of the fittest where “might” alone “makes right”—a prescription for total moral anarchy.
Second, any moral philosophy worthy of the name must include the notion of universality—that is, its moral tenets must be applicable to all human beings—a reality which flows from the existence of a fixed human nature (anthropology). If this is not the case, it becomes impossible to determine right and wrong at all. Identical behavior(s) can be considered morally acceptable by one person and not another or by one nation but not another simply by refusing to apply the relevant moral principles universally. What otherwise would always and everywhere be wrong for example might be right for some but wrong for others simply because of who it is that is performing the moral calculus in question--an example of the complete moral relativism which is so common in our age--nevermind the fact that it is contradictory (self-referentially absurd). Under these unfortunate circumstances, “intent” is allowed to become controlling since it can make behavior which is obviously wrong appear justifiable. Such a situation is very common in contemporary International Relations where the classical tripartite Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis (means, ends, and circumstances) that is, moral calculus has been abandoned for rank Utilitarianism—too often resulting in obvious moral injustices.
Starting with the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States discarded a 2000+ year old golden rule ethical proscription against starting wars of aggression in which only legitimate defense not offense was understood to be acceptable—i.e. defensive war as a last resort only! It is difficult to overestimate just how radical this notion is. Particularly troublesome is the fact that the attacks themselves--in the words of Osama bin Laden--were the result of perceived immoral behavior on our part--the unilateral support of Israel over the Palestinian Arabs including our dismissal of their terrible plight and our garrisoning of US forces in the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina; apparently contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed among other things.
While the intentional killing of innocent human beings (as occurred on 9/11) can never be morally justified, it would be foolish of us not to recognize that our behavior abroad can have disastrous consequences when we fail to consider our actions in terms of the two principles outlined above. That is to say; Palestinian Arabs are unwilling to accept that their lives are not worth as much as are Israelis and rightfully so since all human beings by virtue of their fixed human nature are equally valuable--by first principles if any are valuable at all. For Theists and particularly Christian Theists this is axiomatic of course because man is created in the image of God (Imago Dei). Moreover, we would by the principle of universality detest the stationing of foreign troops on our land and thus the fact that Muslim Arabs do as well is completely understandable. To suggest otherwise is irrational and or dishonest in the extreme.
For anyone to allege that the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner could under any conceivable set of circumstances be morally licit (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all have done so) is to completely depart from the golden rule ethic which has governed humanity for over 2 millennia. By their very nature, both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons intentionally kill innocent human beings. This is virtually 100% certain from an objective perspective and therefore provides the moral certitude required in performing the relevant moral calculus. Under no circumstances can nuclear weapons be used offensively. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that they could ever be utilized defensively either due to the fact that they invariably would be associated with the killing of innocent non-combatants.[3] While conventional weapons are potentially useable in a morally licit way (for defensive purposes only), from a moral perspective, it is clear that the use of nuclear weapons under any set of circumstances is morally prohibitive due to the moral certitude that doing so always results in the intentional killing of innocent human beings and in tremendous numbers.
We have over the past 7+ years in a sense crossed the Rubicon where the waging of war is concerned, meaning we have stepped over the “red-line.” It has now become acceptable ala the “Bush Doctrine” to instigate offensive wars of aggression based on nothing more than a probability calculation that a given country might someday under certain imagined circumstances represent an actual or imminent threat to American national security or survival. This cannot be justified or accepted when subjected to rational/traditional (scholastic) moral philosophical precepts and must be rejected by all human beings of good will.
ENDNOTES:
[1] This in no way means that all human beings have equal talents and abilities.
[2] All the major Theistic belief systems ascribe to this view.
[3] It is impossible for the author to see how such a use could avoid the mass intentional killing of innocent human beings. It is not legitimate to argue that such killing would represent so-called “collateral damage “since it would be completely foreseeable and thus avoidable.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Blockade of Gaza: Worse than a Crime
Counterpunch, Jan. 26-27, 2008
By URI AVNERY
...The Gaza Strip is the largest prison on earth. The breaking of the Rafah wall was an act of liberation. It proves that an inhuman policy is always a stupid policy: no power can stand up against a mass of people that has crossed the border of despair.
...The brutal blockade was a war crime. And worse: it was a stupid blunder. MORE...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Escape from Gaza or Voluntary Transfer?
By Mike Whitney
24/01/08 Independent Clearing House
...Hamas poses no threat to Israel and it controls nothing; certainly not the border. They've even suspended all suicide attacks since they won democratic elections a year and a half ago. But that is not enough for Israel whose goal is to extinguish any trace of Arab solidarity or Palestinian nationalism. Nearly all of the 4,000 articles now appearing on Google News follow this same absurd narrative about 'clever terrorists' who've out-foxed Israel and liberated their people. It's just another way of concealing the criminal brutality of the 60 year long occupation. In truth, Hamas probably had nothing to do with the destruction of the wall. It's just part of Israel's plans to exile more Palestinians... MORE...
24/01/08 Independent Clearing House
...Hamas poses no threat to Israel and it controls nothing; certainly not the border. They've even suspended all suicide attacks since they won democratic elections a year and a half ago. But that is not enough for Israel whose goal is to extinguish any trace of Arab solidarity or Palestinian nationalism. Nearly all of the 4,000 articles now appearing on Google News follow this same absurd narrative about 'clever terrorists' who've out-foxed Israel and liberated their people. It's just another way of concealing the criminal brutality of the 60 year long occupation. In truth, Hamas probably had nothing to do with the destruction of the wall. It's just part of Israel's plans to exile more Palestinians... MORE...
One and Two State Solutions:The Myth of International Consensus
By Kathleen Christison
24/01/08 Counterpunch
...The humanitarian disaster that is Gaza is entirely the result of the international community's supine refusal to stand up to Israel and the U.S. and its active support for an embargo on Gaza that is imprisoning and starving 1.5 million inhabitants and devastating the Gazan economy...
...Invocation of the international consensus to induce Palestinians to stop advocating true equality in a single state in all of Palestine comes out of a kind of denial, a refusal to acknowledge that the international consensus is so oblivious to the injustice being perpetrated against the Palestinians that it has not noticed and does not care that the possibility of establishing two states died quite some years ago. A real two-state solution...is now a forlorn dream from which the international consensus has yet to awaken.
MORE...
NOTE:
This piece by Kathleen Christison is simply excellent. Tragically it provides an accurate depiction of the so-called "facts on the ground" in Palestine/Israel. What is transpiring among the poor people of Gaza is reprehensible. The US and Israel bare prime responsibility for what has become a true humanitarian crisis. It is not factually incorrect to label it a kind of "passive transfer" reminiscent of the Nakba ["the catastrophe"; the expulsion and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes] over a half century ago under the Hagana (pre-Israeli Defense Force).
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
24/01/08 Counterpunch
...The humanitarian disaster that is Gaza is entirely the result of the international community's supine refusal to stand up to Israel and the U.S. and its active support for an embargo on Gaza that is imprisoning and starving 1.5 million inhabitants and devastating the Gazan economy...
...Invocation of the international consensus to induce Palestinians to stop advocating true equality in a single state in all of Palestine comes out of a kind of denial, a refusal to acknowledge that the international consensus is so oblivious to the injustice being perpetrated against the Palestinians that it has not noticed and does not care that the possibility of establishing two states died quite some years ago. A real two-state solution...is now a forlorn dream from which the international consensus has yet to awaken.
MORE...
NOTE:
This piece by Kathleen Christison is simply excellent. Tragically it provides an accurate depiction of the so-called "facts on the ground" in Palestine/Israel. What is transpiring among the poor people of Gaza is reprehensible. The US and Israel bare prime responsibility for what has become a true humanitarian crisis. It is not factually incorrect to label it a kind of "passive transfer" reminiscent of the Nakba ["the catastrophe"; the expulsion and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes] over a half century ago under the Hagana (pre-Israeli Defense Force).
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Thursday, January 24, 2008
"Principle of Utility" Justifies Offensive Nuclear Attack
Editorial Opinion by Dr. J. P. Hubert
If anyone requires further evidence that rank Utilitarianism has become the prevailing ethic in the developed West--look no further. In a paper prepared for the Nato summit in April by five top military leaders the following recommendation is made: “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” see HERE...
Talk about moral relativism. Where is the evidence that these men understand the principle of universality which is part and parcel of every legitimate moral philosophy? What about the categorical imperative of Kant--only do those acts which you would be willing to see universalized? Where is the assurance that these military experts understand the first and second principles of the Natural Law; do good/avoid evil and treat your neighbor fairly? What possible moral philosophy could these individuals have employed other than the principle of utility as applied under a Utilitarian construct? Apparently for them virtually any "means" whether inherently immoral or not can be applied in the pursuit of an identified "end."
The first use of nuclear weapons is an immoral means for the accomplishment of any conceivable end since it involves purposely targeting innocent human beings--non-combatants. This makes it immoral under Just War Doctrinal principles period as well as under international Law (waging "Total War" is a war crime). Under traditional (golden-rule ethic) Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical precepts, one must never intentionally kill the innocent. Offensively detonating a nuclear bomb under any and all circumstances, tactical or strategic involves choosing to intentionally kill the innocent (the object rationally chosen or "means") and it is gravely immoral.
In fact it is highly dubious whether one could ever detonate a nuclear bomb in a defensive capacity either, due to the predictable (and thus intentional) nature involved in the killing of innocents. Such an eventuality could not be termed unintended in the sense of "collateral" damage which refers only to those inadvertent and unintended deaths of non-combatant civilians in time of war which are unforseeable. If large loss of civilian life is virtually certain (that is, one possesses moral certitude), the planned military maneuver is clearly immmoral.
I include the following additional analysis which was posted previously as a NOTE on this topic see THIS...
Having personally lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis it is inconceivable to me that supposedly intelligent military leaders could recommend the use of offensive nuclear weapons in an attempt to prevent further nuclear proliferation and other weapons of mass destruction. There are several insurmountable problems with their analysis.
First, it is not true that "there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world" as the 5 author's have maintained. The original nuclear weapons state (NWS's) nations (China, USSR [now Russia], France, United States and Great Britain) which signed the NPT have through lack of leadership and good will failed to meet their treaty obligations to progressively disarm their nuclear arsenals. Yet, they continue to insist that non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS's) countries must not attempt to develop them. NNWS nations legitimately wonder why they should be held to their NPT obligation not to develop nuclear weapons when the original 5 NWS's refuse to abide by theirs.
The NWS's by some unknown "right" (perhaps might makes right) also insist that those NNWS countries which did not sign the NPT must also refrain from doing so. This is rank hypocrisy of the worst sort. Moreover it is clear that some NWS's have further violated their NPT related obligations by assisting other nations who were not part of the original NWS's to obtain them including Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Obviously, the original NWS's have made no realistic attempt to either progressively disarm (certainly not in the past 20 years) or to otherwise abide by their NPT stipulated agreement not to provide nuclear weapons technology to NNWS nations.
Second the 5 military authors who produced the latest radical manifesto have also committed a grievous error in logic. It is contradictory (violates the law of non-contradiction) in the extreme to purport that the best way to prevent an actual phenomenon from occurring is to in fact make it occur. Nuclear weapons proliferation is held to be disadvantageous because it is thought to increase the risk (likelihood) that nuclear weapons will be utilized; particularly offensively--a universally recognized and abhorrent historical reality based upon their first use by the United States against the Japanese. If that were not the case there would be no morally legitimate reason to limit proliferation.
Third, many nations already have nuclear weapons which are associated with some finite risk of use albeit perhaps incalculable quantitatively. Should nuclear weapons be used to stop a nation state from developing them, what does this say? It indicates that the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner is justifiable under some circumstances. Not only does it violate Just War Doctrinal principles it makes legitimate that which it is attempting to make illegitimate--the use of offensive nuclear weapons--whether by a nation state or a terrorist organization. Put another way, it says "do what we say not what we do simply because we say so." Those NNWS can legitimately reply, "you are hypocritical in the extreme. Why should you be the only ones to have nuclear weapons--you aren't even willing to disarm the huge arsenals you already have and agreed to reduce and yet you insist that we cannot even have one? How unjust of you."
Perhaps even more troubling to me is the idea that so many human beings including the top tier candidates for President in both US political parties are willing to consider the use of nuclear weapons offensively. This is a most disturbing development. It demonstrates that the so-called Bush doctrine of preventive war has become normalized despite its being completely incompatible with international law, Just War Doctrinal principles and traditional moral precepts.
Too many people seem to have lost sight of just how truly awful it is to detonate even one nuclear weapon. I suggest that everyone read or re-read the accounts of those who documented the carnage and human suffering after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. The genetic and medical complications alone are still being felt to this day. The deleterious effects of radioactive fallout and possible complete fouling of the earth's atmosphere/environment were these hideous weapons to be utilized demands that they never be used again. There is no guarantee that--should even one tactical nuclear warhead be detonated--it would not result in WWIII. The resulting nuclear Armageddon and nuclear Winter would be capable of destroying all life on earth.
If anyone requires further evidence that rank Utilitarianism has become the prevailing ethic in the developed West--look no further. In a paper prepared for the Nato summit in April by five top military leaders the following recommendation is made: “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” see HERE...
Talk about moral relativism. Where is the evidence that these men understand the principle of universality which is part and parcel of every legitimate moral philosophy? What about the categorical imperative of Kant--only do those acts which you would be willing to see universalized? Where is the assurance that these military experts understand the first and second principles of the Natural Law; do good/avoid evil and treat your neighbor fairly? What possible moral philosophy could these individuals have employed other than the principle of utility as applied under a Utilitarian construct? Apparently for them virtually any "means" whether inherently immoral or not can be applied in the pursuit of an identified "end."
The first use of nuclear weapons is an immoral means for the accomplishment of any conceivable end since it involves purposely targeting innocent human beings--non-combatants. This makes it immoral under Just War Doctrinal principles period as well as under international Law (waging "Total War" is a war crime). Under traditional (golden-rule ethic) Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical precepts, one must never intentionally kill the innocent. Offensively detonating a nuclear bomb under any and all circumstances, tactical or strategic involves choosing to intentionally kill the innocent (the object rationally chosen or "means") and it is gravely immoral.
In fact it is highly dubious whether one could ever detonate a nuclear bomb in a defensive capacity either, due to the predictable (and thus intentional) nature involved in the killing of innocents. Such an eventuality could not be termed unintended in the sense of "collateral" damage which refers only to those inadvertent and unintended deaths of non-combatant civilians in time of war which are unforseeable. If large loss of civilian life is virtually certain (that is, one possesses moral certitude), the planned military maneuver is clearly immmoral.
I include the following additional analysis which was posted previously as a NOTE on this topic see THIS...
Having personally lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis it is inconceivable to me that supposedly intelligent military leaders could recommend the use of offensive nuclear weapons in an attempt to prevent further nuclear proliferation and other weapons of mass destruction. There are several insurmountable problems with their analysis.
First, it is not true that "there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world" as the 5 author's have maintained. The original nuclear weapons state (NWS's) nations (China, USSR [now Russia], France, United States and Great Britain) which signed the NPT have through lack of leadership and good will failed to meet their treaty obligations to progressively disarm their nuclear arsenals. Yet, they continue to insist that non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS's) countries must not attempt to develop them. NNWS nations legitimately wonder why they should be held to their NPT obligation not to develop nuclear weapons when the original 5 NWS's refuse to abide by theirs.
The NWS's by some unknown "right" (perhaps might makes right) also insist that those NNWS countries which did not sign the NPT must also refrain from doing so. This is rank hypocrisy of the worst sort. Moreover it is clear that some NWS's have further violated their NPT related obligations by assisting other nations who were not part of the original NWS's to obtain them including Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Obviously, the original NWS's have made no realistic attempt to either progressively disarm (certainly not in the past 20 years) or to otherwise abide by their NPT stipulated agreement not to provide nuclear weapons technology to NNWS nations.
Second the 5 military authors who produced the latest radical manifesto have also committed a grievous error in logic. It is contradictory (violates the law of non-contradiction) in the extreme to purport that the best way to prevent an actual phenomenon from occurring is to in fact make it occur. Nuclear weapons proliferation is held to be disadvantageous because it is thought to increase the risk (likelihood) that nuclear weapons will be utilized; particularly offensively--a universally recognized and abhorrent historical reality based upon their first use by the United States against the Japanese. If that were not the case there would be no morally legitimate reason to limit proliferation.
Third, many nations already have nuclear weapons which are associated with some finite risk of use albeit perhaps incalculable quantitatively. Should nuclear weapons be used to stop a nation state from developing them, what does this say? It indicates that the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner is justifiable under some circumstances. Not only does it violate Just War Doctrinal principles it makes legitimate that which it is attempting to make illegitimate--the use of offensive nuclear weapons--whether by a nation state or a terrorist organization. Put another way, it says "do what we say not what we do simply because we say so." Those NNWS can legitimately reply, "you are hypocritical in the extreme. Why should you be the only ones to have nuclear weapons--you aren't even willing to disarm the huge arsenals you already have and agreed to reduce and yet you insist that we cannot even have one? How unjust of you."
Perhaps even more troubling to me is the idea that so many human beings including the top tier candidates for President in both US political parties are willing to consider the use of nuclear weapons offensively. This is a most disturbing development. It demonstrates that the so-called Bush doctrine of preventive war has become normalized despite its being completely incompatible with international law, Just War Doctrinal principles and traditional moral precepts.
Too many people seem to have lost sight of just how truly awful it is to detonate even one nuclear weapon. I suggest that everyone read or re-read the accounts of those who documented the carnage and human suffering after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. The genetic and medical complications alone are still being felt to this day. The deleterious effects of radioactive fallout and possible complete fouling of the earth's atmosphere/environment were these hideous weapons to be utilized demands that they never be used again. There is no guarantee that--should even one tactical nuclear warhead be detonated--it would not result in WWIII. The resulting nuclear Armageddon and nuclear Winter would be capable of destroying all life on earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)