How Far Would We Go To Win ?
Dec 30th, 2009 | 10 responses
Let me begin by making it clear that I’m not suggesting the following idea should be adopted or that it would work, I merely offer it as an interesting hypothetical. So please skip if you can comments on that angle.
It came to me via a radio show I was listening to on the way home from running errands. The host was discussing the bizzare rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan which, according to this host, require an enemy to point his gun at a soldier before the solider is allowed to respond in kind. I’m not sure that this is true but certainly if it is that would be ridiculous.
He discussed that had we adopted a similar policy in World War Two we might never have won and cited the very difficult decision to drop the atomic bombs (and let us please also avoid the debate over that decision). He doubted whether a similar choice could or would be made today.
Again I’m not sure that using such weapons would do anything to end the war, but let us just assume it would. Assume we knew for relative certainty (the same level of certainty we had in WW2) that using one or two bombs would end the war on Terror, eliminate Al Qaeda as a force, etc.
Would we actually do it or is the world now to a point that we have to fight ‘non lethal’ wars ?
Worth a thought or two I think (though I am quite sure there will be some dissent both as to the need for thought and indeed the idea I ever think <G>)
10 Responses to “How Far Would We Go To Win ?”
Please site which radio host made these bizarre comments. Lets hear it from the Goodwin crowd…
Uh….Nukes?
Are you nuts?
What would the military industrial complex do if we actually managed to end this “war” – or wars in general? Their interests are deeply entrenched; I'm not sure they and their political partners would “allow” any quick end, since (indefinitely continuing) wars are essential for their livelyhood. As for the morality angle, I doubt morality has ever weighed very heavily with them to begin with, and if it has, it's a shallow version; I'm talking about the weapons manufacturers here, not the troops.
The hypothetical is so far removed from reality that it's hard to contemplate it. Nuking Al Qaeda? That doesn't even make sense.
I thought I made it clear I was not suggesting as an actual policy.
Guess I'll chalk this post up to an end of the year blunder.
Sorry folks..
I'll echo ElZagna's point, but even trying to answer the hypothetical would require an answer to the following question: How many innocents dead?
Time to fight non-lethal wars??? Duh. Seriously, aren't we beyond the schoolyard game whereby men have to prove themselves via big explosions and playing God by causing death indiscriminately?
Why haven't we focused our money, time and expertise on freezing funding to our enemies instead of sending kids to die for a war that's never going to end?
Let me count the ways, or at least start the list:
1. We would have to stop arming our enemy's enemies. Enter the military supplier lobbyists.
2. We would have to move away from using oil. Enter the oil and energy industry lobbyists.
3. We would have to move away from the drug war. Political landmine.
All are feasible. All are currently politically impossible. Sucks, eh?
(By the way, welcome to TMV)
I don't have a definitive answer to the question, but the post does cause me to remember something I've pondered: it seems to me that the problem our society sees in terrorism is not really the number lives lost, although that is often how it is expressed. Many more people die from murder and various other preventable causes then have died from terrorists attacks. So while it might be tempting to say that a nuke wouldn't be worth it because it would probably kill more innocent people then terrorism would kill, clearly we'd also need to account for whatever the factor is that apparently magnifies the importance of death caused by terrorism. So what is that factor?
I'd say it's the fear and insecurity that is caused in those that don't die that makes a terrorist attack disproportionately significant. However, certainly dropping a nuke would also cause quite a lot of feelings of fear and insecurity. So, I'd conclude that dropping a nuke would not be justified, even if would end terrorism. Of course, the obvious counterargument is that terrorism could end up killing more people than one nuke, especially if terrorists are able to get their hands on their own nukes. I did say I don't have a definitive answer.
Also, this argument is entirely a utilitarian one, which I've noticed is the philosophy that we tend to lean toward when it comes to counter-terrorism, but I'm not sure that's justified.
I think I got the drift of your hypo. Of course, nukes are impractical, but one could say apply the theory to some radioactive poison, for example. I don't think we should, this is not the Soviet Union we are fighting, they are more akin to cockroaches or ants at a picnic, unless we elevate them in our own minds. (Let's get real, there are more people killed due to using cell phones and texting while driving then the terrorists have killed.) Talk about using very desperate weapons, the terrorists would use anything they could get their hands on, including nukes. The difference is we aren't targeting innocents. There is plenty of blood on our hands from the past, I hope we keep our hands cleaner these days, but we also can't allow any WMD to get to the terrorists. To me, this is a holding action, no need for extreme measures.