pre-emptive is not enough

[cortez]

if a nation state unilaterally adopts the policy of pre-emptive strike against another nation wouldnt it then be moral for a third party nation to adopt a policy of pre-pre-emtive strike agianst the nation that was threatening pre-emptive strikes----if the third party nation perceived that an actual pre-emptive strike might destabilize a region enough erupt into massive global warfare------

 

[FiveParadox]

I am unsure as to what you are attempting to get at, cortez.

However, I would not perceive a "pre-pre-emptive strike" as being any different from any pre-emptive strike; nevertheless, my position on pre-emptive attacks is that one had better have some pretty concrete, and no-less-than damning evidence to justify them.

 

[Said1]

if a nation state unilaterally adopts the policy of pre-emptive strike against another nation wouldnt it then be moral for a third party nation to adopt a policy of pre-pre-emtive strike agianst the nation that was threatening pre-emptive strikes----if the third party nation perceived that an actual pre-emptive strike might destabilize a region enough erupt into massive global warfare------

That would depend on what interests were being protected, vis-a-vis the pre-emtive strike.

 

[Kreskin]

Such countries need a Department of Psychic Services.

 

[FiveParadox]

Pre-pre-emptive / Pre-emptive ?

Such countries need a Department of Psychic Services.

Could the same not be said about nations that would use pre-emptive strikes at all?

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

Such countries need a Department of Psychic Services.

Regan had one.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: pre-emptive is not en

I support pre-emt to the cube root, the whole planet should be covered with launch installations at intervals of six-hundred feet, they should be controlled by a computer so there are no mistakes, we could call it Hal.

 

[the caracal kid]

wonderful DB, and in an act of bad scifi becoming reality, the machine will become aware, aware that humans are an infestation that threatens its own existance and execute measures to irradicate humanity.

 

[cortez]

sorry darkbeaver
i cant support yer concept of nuke- cells
at least not so close as 600 feet
youve got switch to SI units if you want to keep yer job at the UN
nuke cells one kilometer wide would suffice-- that should give us that much more breathing space
i think the idea of a centralized computer control is cool
i dont believe any nonneural logical systems could ever possess the property of self-consciousness-paranoia-- that only happens in the movies--

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

I am unsure as to what you are attempting to get at, cortez.

However, I would not perceive a "pre-pre-emptive strike" as being any different from any pre-emptive strike; nevertheless, my position on pre-emptive attacks is that one had better have some pretty concrete, and no-less-than damning evidence to justify them.

i geuss im getting at showing the absurdity of the concept of---- pre-emptive strike -- by using the well known rhetorical device known as --reducto -ad-absurdum--
while simultaneously inviting any interested party to contribute any amusing thoughts they might have on the subject.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: pre-emptive is not en

Thank god (pick one) that I have access to advisors in other departments thankyou CK and Admiral Cortez, I will advise the department of defence/offence of the refinements. CK have you raised the topic of planet infestation here before, you know there are those in these pages who have orders to multiply and eat the planet.

 

[Kreskin]

If pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, no one has the moral authority to judge China when it uses the same policy.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

I am unsure as to what you are attempting to get at, cortez.

However, I would not perceive a "pre-pre-emptive strike" as being any different from any pre-emptive strike; nevertheless, my position on pre-emptive attacks is that one had better have some pretty concrete, and no-less-than damning evidence to justify them.

i geuss im getting at showing the absurdity of the concept of---- pre-emptive strike -- by using the well known rhetorical device known as --reducto -ad-absurdum--
while simultaneously inviting any interested party to contribute any amusing thoughts they might have on the subject.

Cortez thankyou for the reducto-ad-absurdum, I'ts nice to have an academic term for the exercise, one that has been practised for awhile.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

If pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, no one has the moral authority to judge China when it uses the same policy.

Pre-emptive strikes using nuclear weapons has already occurred in the middle-east, the use of depleted urainium warheads in combat began in 1991, these weapons have been used in Afghanistan, Jugoslavia and Iraq the death toll because of the dust, the US army had 700,000 service people return from overthere in 1991, 240,000 of them are on permanent medical disability 11,000 are dead, there are also civilian deaths and birth defects in all these theaters of war.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

If pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, no one has the moral authority to judge China when it uses the same policy.

Pre-emptive strikes using nuclear weapons has already occurred in the middle-east, the use of depleted urainium warheads in combat began in 1991, these weapons have been used in Afghanistan, Jugoslavia and Iraq the death toll because of the dust, the US army had 700,000 service people return from overthere in 1991, 240,000 of them are on permanent medical disability 11,000 are dead, there are also civilian deaths and birth defects in all these theaters of war.

So when China says their intelligence shows whomever as being a threat there really isn't much to debate when China goes to war.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: pre-emptive is not enough

If pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, no one has the moral authority to judge China when it uses the same policy.

how about ANYONE using this policy

ie India pre-empts Pakistan
Isreal pre-empts Iran
columbia pre-empts venezuela
taiwan pre-empts china
china prempts russsia
etc

agian -- its kind of understood -- that this policy of pre-emptive strike is to be used by the western axis only.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: pre-emptive is not en

Yes because we have the moral authority to allow us to carry out gods will, the burden of omnicide has been placed on our shoulders because we're the meanest backbone bearing beings on the planet. I think it's a matter of quite proper monkey business.

 

[Lotuslander]

Cortez wrote:

if a nation state unilaterally adopts the policy of pre-emptive strike against another nation wouldnt it then be moral for a third party nation to adopt a policy of pre-pre-emtive strike agianst the nation that was threatening pre-emptive strikes----if the third party nation perceived that an actual pre-emptive strike might destabilize a region enough erupt into massive global warfare------

I was thinking about your quote and I think it has already happened. In fact it is what started the First World War.

The Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke and heir apparent Franz-Ferdinand is gunned down by a Serbian Nationalsit is Sarajevo in August 1914. Accordingly, Austria is going to attack Serbia in retalliation. Austria-Hungary is allied with Imperial Germany and asks Germany if they will fight with Austria against Serbia. Serbia is allied with Czarist Russia so attacking Serbia essentially means you are declaring war and attacking Russia. Russia herself is allied to France and so after the Austrians invade Serbia the Germans invade France through Belgium in order to pre-emptively take the offensive away from the French although the French had nothing to do with the original conflict which was between Austria and Serbia. It was assumed that because attacking Serbia meant attacking Russia and because Russia is allied with France attacking one essentially meant attacking all of them. Pre-emptive I say

 

[cortez]

interesting
i never thought of ww1 in these terms before
seeing that the pre-premptive strategy worked so well back then and gave us much to be proud of of-- not the least of which is a fine poem about poppies-- i say
pre-preemptive

bring it on!!!!

 

[Machjo]

that was waht WWI was all about! At that stage, the Germans beleived that if they didn't attack france first, then fracne would attack germany first, so it only made sence to attack France first.

So following that logic, I say as soon as we suspect the mere possibility that a nation might want to attack us, we ought to pre-empt it right away!