http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

1: They're shells.  Doesn't take long to prepare or launch shells, and if coordinated properly, could be a complete surprise.  Preemptively take out the artillery placements before they have a chance to fire a shot.
2: BIG EXPLOSION.  Boom!  That makes things blow up. 
3: Radiation means no reinforcements can get into the area either to restart the artillery system or, depending on the terrain of the region, could even prevent the North Korean assault forces from coming across the border.  Not that Kim Jong Il wouldn't order them to cross a pool of radiation, but they would be left weakened and physically drained from the effects of radiation.

Anyway, back on topic...

What's wrong with some good ol' tactical nukes launched into the DMZ?  Oops, there goes your artillery barrage! 

It makes perfect sense!  You just don't understand it! 

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> @Zarf
1. Those excuses would arise whether or not they are already deployed today.

Then those people would already be against the war, whether a war was utter perfection or the status quo, so we don't count them in the issue.  I'm only showing the relationship between relative support for war and the expected outcome of the war.

2. So why must we only look at things through a utilitarian framework? If the world was run purely through a utility framework then there would be rape and theft rampant. Utilitiarianism fails horribly... Say there are 10 people going to rape 1 person. Obviously 10 people are enjoying it and only

Never said we did have to look at pure utilitarianism.  I'm only saying that some people do analyze the Iraq war from a utilitarian perspective.  And even if you don't buy that, I'm saying that SOME of the people against the war look at the issue from the question of consequences.  Seriously, you're going to argue that the only Iraq war opposition is against it on deontological grounds?

1 person is not enjoying it so 10 people are justified in what they did. The greatest good for the greatest number...
Also, taking only what US citizens say is also morally wrong. Ofcourse you can just tell me there is no such thing as morals in a utility framework but that is fortunately not the case in the world. The US delivering democracy to Iraq is not a choice the US citizens need to make. Its a choice Iraqis need to make. All types of governments have their pros and cons... It is kind of like your neighbor (muslim) decided that he was going to make you (jew) convert to islam. It is not a choice of your neighbor. If you wanted to be a muslim bad enough you would have converted already. I know that analogy is kind of bad but u get the point lol

This is utterly non-responsive to either my point, or anything I said.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> @ZARF
> Who would have a problem with this war?

People would. Who gets to decide who is wrong and who is right?
The US? Are you sure the US has the best interests of Iraqis at heart?

Not saying either way, it'd be pretty safe to assume the major backlash with
your plan would be who gets to push the button. No state, person or
organisation is completely impartial and fair.

But would you agree with this:

The people that didn't like the war based on a consequential analysis (it would cost too much, we wouldn't succeed, it would breed terrorism) would no longer oppose the war, since it had a 100% chance of success.

No, we're not misunderstanding it.  Probability of success is a factor in determining if a war is just.  Without judging the probability of success, you can never weigh the consequences of conducting a revolution against the consequences of not conducting a revolution.  As a result, your idea of "just" is hollow, because there is no calculation in it.

Let's take your example.  Pretend Martin Luther King Jr. armed African American protesters, and staged a revolution against the government.  Now, in this case, I honestly believe it would have been successful both because of the Vietnam War's stress on the US military and because Caucasians would have been better informed about the prejudice against African Americans.  But for the sake of my example, pretend it would be a failure.  A failed revolution would result in the massive slaughter of African Americans by Caucasians, both during the war and afterwards (the Klu Klux Klan could easily make the case that killing African Americans was an effort to prevent them from rising up again, and many more African Americans would be racially profiled as revolutionaries due to their skin color).

That means this: If you assume that there is a high probability of failure, a revolution must calculate the results of failure in determining whether a revolution is justified.  No matter how repressive the government in the status quo is, if the result of a revolution is inevitable failure, the repression against the involved individuals will probably be worse (with some exceptions, such as instances in which the revolution breeds domestic reform).  That means the revolution would actually be more harmful to its own cause, because the government would try to stamp out its cause.

In addition, without calculating probability of success, a call to arms for revolution would always be immediate.  There would never be an opportunity to say, "well, we may have a justified cause, but we would be more likely to succeed if we waited."  That creates hasty revolutions, with less planning or preparation, which are less likely to succeed.

Petition to close this thread as spam:

1. Zarf BeebleBrix
2. coffeeking

Petition to congratulate coffeeking on getting married:

1. Zarf BeebleBrix
2. coffeeking

Petition to ban petitions in the IC forums:

1. Zarf BeebleBrix
2. coffeeking

Petition to ban Zarf BeebleBrix because he's abusing the privilege given by coffeeking:

1. Zarf BeebleBrix
2. coffeeking

Petition to give Zarf BeebleBrix a million bazillion dollars:

1. Zarf BeebleBrix
2. coffeeking

> A10|KindaOtto wrote:

> >You're mixing up "should" and "could."

You should secede.

The only reason any state is a part of a larger country is for protection. There's strength in numbers. If the main country weaker than you, then you should secede. There is no advantage to staying.

Except for the issue of third parties.

Picture this:
Nation 1 has 1,000 soldiers.
Nation 2 has 800 soldiers.

A faction in Nation 1 controls 600 of those 1,000 soldiers.  Under your theory, that means they have a moral obligation to revolt.
However, assuming no deaths occurred, we would now have the following:

Nation 1: 400 soldiers
Nation 2: 800 soldiers
Nation 3: 600 soldiers

That would give Nation 2 the ability to gobble up either Nations 1 or 3.  Strength in numbers is exactly why a nation would want to be part of a greater union despite being able to take down the union on its own.

> And don't be pulling mad scientists and death rays out of your ass

Mad scientists and death rays may sound crazy.  But it's a facetious example of a real issue: that technological development and tactical advantage means representation of the people isn't necessary.  Let me give you a couple more real-world examples of what I mean:

A: Terrorism: A small military band can exact huge amounts of damage on a large, democratic nation, while being wholly unrepresentative of the people.
B: Cyberweapons: A cyberweapon could be created and unleashed by a single person, wholly unrepresentative of anything outside his mom's basement.  Meanwhile, it could spell doom for an advanced nation if brought to a high level of sophistication.
C: Unmanned weapons: For this category, take yourself out of the frame of conventional thought about rebellions and step into the realm of corporations acting as political agents.  Theoretically, a corporation has the resources to take on the role as a political actor, and could very well stage or support revolution in a nation.  Now, accepting this fact, a corporation would also have the resources to utilize its own research as weapons in said revolution.  From there, just diagram the possible number of technologies that a business may leap ahead of the government in researching.  Artificial intelligence design, nanotechnology, biotechnology, etc.
D: Biological weapons: Similar to cyberweaponry.  It could involve only a few researchers to create a disease with particular desired qualities (human-to-human transmission, immunity to conventional medicines, ensuring the creators have immunity, etc).  But with a bio weapon, a small group of people can take down a larger enemy.

> Zidi wrote:

> And, i think in fact, they would only take an individual if he in fact had these terrorist links.

See, here's the problem, though: You're assuming there won't be corruption.

If a law says "This person has X power," it should be assumed that X power will eventually be used during the calculation of whether the law is just or not.  In short, legislators don't just write laws by throwing words against a dartboard.  They carefully pick the wording, which means there is meaning behind the wording.

But I entered the cheat code!  That means I win!  Duh!

Don't forget about teh angry cows!