From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 13:46:16 MDT
>From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com>
>>Brian D Williams wrote:
> So is a nuked Manhattan.
>Yes. For that reason, I will not nuke Manhattan.
>Similarly, should Manhattan be nuked, I will not mega-nuke Mecca.
>In the event that an actual government launches a nuclear attack
>against US territory, I can see how a nuclear response against
>that government might be appropriate. (I don't think I would do
>it if the government could be dealt with by conventional warfare,
>but I can see how some people might see more value in maintaining
>a tit-for-tat punishment for the use of nukes. Even though I
>myself find this terribly frightening.)
Okay, I confess, I was being deliberately provocative in my
response. It's pretty clear you saw right through it. You were
supposed to wait awhile until everybody had finished screaming at
me though. ;)
I was inspired by the Honored Matres of "ChapterHouse Dune" who
would scorch whole planets to get one offender.
Yes, a hard answer, a very hard answer, but the wrong answer.
Your response seems very well reasoned. Yes, we most certainly
could/should not create two wrongs.
In the case of a government it might be appropriate.
>However, if terrorists smuggle a nuke into Manhattan, even if they
>are known beyond all doubt to be Arab terrorists, holding the
>entire Islamic people responsible and launching a nuclear attack
>against Mecca is absolutely unacceptable. That is not justice.
>That is not even revenge! That is an unprovoked nuclear attack
>pure and simple! I don't care how enraged you are, if you can't
>find the people responsible, that doesn't mean you can launch A
>NUCLEAR ATTACK on someone else! I think the Onion really said it
>all after 911: "An Enraged Nation Looks Around For Someone To
>Hit". I can see the US, in the wake of losing Manhattan
>to a nuke, engaging in conventional war, in the sense of actual
>invasion and conquest, against any and all nations that ever
>helped the terrorists responsible in any way, or - if the
>terrorists plain can't be found - against any nations that harbor
>or help terrorists, period. I don't necessarily approve, but I
>can see how others would. But to engage in *nuclear* retaliation
>against any group that has not directly used a nuclear weapon
>risks the survival of human civilization by eroding the principle
>of DO NOT USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXCEPT AGAINST COUNTRIES THAT HAVE
>DIRECTLY HIT YOU WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, which is a critical
>principle in international relations.
Yet if Manhattan was nuked, this principal has already been
violated and lost. So in effect it's currently worthless.
Imagine if anyone was ever stupid enough to nuke the Israelis what
could happen.
Eighth and final post of the day.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:06 MST