NATO's Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

[JohnnyFlame]

I for one don't think many of us would like a rational world. In fact the more rational our decisions it seems to me the more dangerous it becomes.

Take Darfur for example. If the Western World made a rational and scientific decision they wouldn't get involved.

It's not a economic market. There is no brownie points for us as they likely don't appreciate us being involved. We risk our lives to gain what thinking purely rationally and scientifically?

The troops are sent to this and so many other places based on what? The moral and cultural values we have -- not rational thinking.

Now we increasingly see the reluctance of countries to send troops anywhere. The reasoning is logical. These people aren't our problem. We have our own security problems with these religions if we get involved. There is no economic upside. There is a political downside both internationally and domestically.

Rationally we move the way I believe the Americans will soon turn for awhile. Protectionist and non-interventionist. The bodies will pileup like they did in Bosnia when Clinton was Pres and they will be loathe to intervene. That will be a logical and scientifically based decision. Back to the old days where the Americans will have to be directly attacked by a country before they will commit troops.

Frankly I think the easy way out has a lot of appeal. Basically as Western Nations we could ignore the rest of the world. Technically if they kill each other off it helps with overpopulation. Our values would scream at us but logically, scientifically and economically it makes sense. We could spend the time working on our own problems with drug abuse, poverty etc. Pull the troops, government workers out of everywhere. Leave only those who work to improve our economic opportunities. Again the savings could be put to helping our own problems with infrastructure etc. In every problem area we could speak sympathetically but not mean a word of it and do nothing regardless. We could sell arms to both sides and make a mint and again use that to improve our own air quality as one example.

We could also think scientifically and logically at home. Take prison sentences as an example. We take the time the person is incarcerated and balance it against execution. Then factor in the likely economic impact(they usually just end up back in jail so that should be minimal) and if it's cheaper to snuff them they presto decision made. Less trouble for our police forces and less of them which once again saves money. In healthcare patients would be given care based on their economic upside. The savings here would be astronomical.

These moral/religious/cultural values are getting in our way. They need to all be eliminated and decisions based simply on scientific, logical, economic thought. Wouldn't the world be a better place then?

I mean where is the downside.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Take Darfur for example. If the Western World made a rational and scientific decision they wouldn't get involved.

It's not a economic market. There is no brownie points for us as they likely don't appreciate us being involved. We risk our lives to gain what thinking purely rationally and scientifically?

Well, I think we need to decide how we want to define rationality. I think that values and beliefs are fundamental in every rational, scientific argument; therefore, you can't make a rational argument without making underlying value statements. For example, in Darfur, to get involved is to say that the value of human life outweighs economic possibilities and brownie points. We can even make a scientific argument as to why human life is important to us - why it's logical to value it highly.

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

The reasoning is logical. These people aren't our problem. We have our own security problems with these religions if we get involved....

The reasoning is logical in a sense, but an argument like that is nevertheless based on values. We would be saying that, in that particular case, we value our own security and economic interests more than we value the costs in terms of human life. We would need an awfully good rational argument to justify that tradeoff.

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

That will be a logical and scientifically based decision.

Again, I would say that would be a shift in values, not a shift towards more rationality.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Well, I think we need to decide how we want to define rationality. I think that values and beliefs are fundamental in every rational, scientific argument; therefore, you can't make a rational argument without making underlying value statements. For example, in Darfur, to get involved is to say that the value of human life outweighs economic possibilities and brownie points. We can even make a scientific argument as to why human life is important to us - why it's logical to value it highly.


The reasoning is logical in a sense, but an argument like that is nevertheless based on values. We would be saying that, in that particular case, we value our own security and economic interests more than we value the costs in terms of human life. We would need an awfully good rational argument to justify that tradeoff.

Again, I would say that would be a shift in values, not a shift towards more rationality.

That there is a "value" to human life really isn't the question scientifically. Of course we place a value on our own lives. But logically why should we bother with the lives of others who might cause our own deaths? So we have the value of our own lives vrs the value of other's lives. In that case we look at it from an economic, scientific and political point of view.

Economic --makes no sense. Not a market and cost money/lives.
Scientifc -- the removal of these people from the planet is likely a net benefit to us. They won't be educated so we don't miss out on their possible additions to our knowledge base. They would not be taking up valuable resources. They won't be adversely affecting the environment. On and on they are expendable.
Political -- we look good as we call for peace and don't interfere in the running of nation states.

Like I said it's a world we probably don't like but it's an easy way out and completely logical and scientific.

We just have to dump anything based on values to make it a much simpler world for us.

[HotHotHeat]

Isn't the reason the US marches all over the world policing everybody to protect American interests? No one said anything about humanitarian efforts in Darfur.


Bottom line is if religious fundamentalism is on the rise, Islam and the Western World are going to have one hell of a hard time getting along.

Politically, the USA does not care how they're viewed on the world scale...As long as they're the most influential.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Isn't the reason the US marches all over the world policing everybody to protect American interests? No one said anything about humanitarian efforts in Darfur.


Bottom line is if religious fundamentalism is on the rise, Islam and the Western World are going to have one hell of a hard time getting along.

Politically, the USA does not care how they're viewed on the world scale...As long as they're the most influential.

The problem is that how they're viewed greatly impacts their influence. They've seriously limited their ability to influence the middle east both diplomatically and economically, which leaves just military influence, which isn't very strong given the current obligations that their military has. They're still influential among western powers, but the only way they'll be able to diplomatically or economically exert influence in the middle-east is by first building consensus amongst western powers. And they haven't been terribly good at that lately, either.

In regards to the rise of islamic fundamentalism and the solutions to it, the recent Rand Corp. report was very good, I thought. Not necessarily saying things that haven't been said before, but providing some very good in depth analysis on the issue:

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/02/11/

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Like I said it's a world we probably don't like but it's an easy way out and completely logical and scientific.

We just have to dump anything based on values to make it a much simpler world for us.

I think we might not be understanding each others' point, and if so, I'm sorry, because I think we actually agree when it comes to the problem in the grand scheme of things.

My point is that considering things from an economic point of view is not devoid of values - quite the opposite. It is a value statement. Likewise with what you've called the scientific and the political points of view.

Here:

"Humans should be wiped out because they are destroying the planet."
Implied value statement: "I believe that the continued survival of all other living things on earth is more important than that of human beings."

"Gravity causes objects with mass to be attracted to objects of larger mass."
Value statement (could be): "I believe that it is more important to explain the world in terms of non-supernatural, discoverable laws than to see things as controlled by the whim of a supernatural being."

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The problem is that how they're viewed greatly impacts their influence. They've seriously limited their ability to influence the middle east both diplomatically and economically, which leaves just military influence, which isn't very strong given the current obligations that their military has. They're still influential among western powers, but the only way they'll be able to diplomatically or economically exert influence in the middle-east is by first building consensus amongst western powers. And they haven't been terribly good at that lately, either.

In regards to the rise of islamic fundamentalism and the solutions to it, the recent Rand Corp. report was very good, I thought. Not necessarily saying things that haven't been said before, but providing some very good in depth analysis on the issue:

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/02/11/

Yet again enormously expensive and involves literally thousands of people being deployed to gain what? Far cheaper and likely more effective would be too turn Sunni against Shiaa. Keep the situation between the two volatile and in the meantime sell arms to both sides.

At the same time decry the violence and repudiate all previous attempts at interference in Muslim affairs. Be always willing to hold a peace conference and work with shuttle diplomacy.

Win win.

[photon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

But logically why should we bother with the lives of others who might cause our own deaths? So we have the value of our own lives vrs the value of other's lives.

Lots of reasons, there's lots of research about morals and values and why societies have them, how they develop, and what purposes they have. There's science behind "do unto others".

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Scientifc -- the removal of these people from the planet is likely a net benefit to us. They won't be educated so we don't miss out on their possible additions to our knowledge base. They would not be taking up valuable resources. They won't be adversely affecting the environment. On and on they are expendable.

You call this scientific when it isn't that's more a selfish or pragmatic viewpoint. Science does not equal amoral.

Morals and values have a net benefit to our society (otherwise we wouldn't have them), so to operate without those values isn't "scientific", a "scientific" view would recognize that morals and values are an important part of our society.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yet again enormously expensive and involves literally thousands of people being deployed to gain what? Far cheaper and likely more effective would be too turn Sunni against Shiaa. Keep the situation between the two volatile and in the meantime sell arms to both sides.

A rational argument could be made for both. What are your values?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sparks

I think we might not be understanding each others' point, and if so, I'm sorry, because I think we actually agree when it comes to the problem in the grand scheme of things.

My point is that considering things from an economic point of view is not devoid of values - quite the opposite. It is a value statement. Likewise with what you've called the scientific and the political points of view.

Here:

"Humans should be wiped out because they are destroying the planet."
Implied value statement: "I believe that the continued survival of all other living things on earth is more important than that of human beings."

"Gravity causes objects with mass to be attracted to objects of larger mass."
Value statement: "I believe that non-supernatural, discoverable laws govern the universe."

Well part of what I'm saying is it would be a whole lot easier to just ignore our values and sit back and be cold, hard calculating in our response to the world. So as in looking at the greater good for all we wouldn't bother but only look to our own greater good and if necessary at the expense of others.

What we would at the moment I believe consider anti-values.

In the interim we would say whatever they wanted to hear but without any followup actions on our part. We would have values but be entirely hypocritical. Then we would just take the facts, work them out to whatever worked best for us and go from there while the whole time preaching to the choir.

So I guess if hypocrisy and greed are values then yeah that would be the value plan.

[Sparks]

^^ Yeah, I totally agree.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sparks

A rational argument could be made for both. What are your values?

My values are I'd go help the underdog. I wouldn't give a hoot about the economics, whether it was scientific or politically correct. I would indeed consider the value of human life worth fighting for even at the loss of some of our own lives.

But that would be the hard choice.

The easier choice would to just turn inward and look after our own. Not like there isn't enough of them with problems and just let the rest of them stew in their own mess.

Don't much matter anyway. Very much looks like Western Society(including soon the Americans) have decided the rest of the world ain't worth the hassle. I'm thinking they decide to pullback and get far less involved and the bodies will pile up exponentially!!!!!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The entire doctrine is putting Western values (all of the above) on a pedestal. Including our ignorance for ridiculous levels of consumption. It's as if we're entitled to more than others solely based of the fact we became developed before other parts of the world.

I think you'd find the people actually in charge in the 'non-western' world have just as much or more ignorance of their 'levels of consumption' and contempt for the environment than the 'Western-World.' It's not like the common serf in the developing world is being altruistic by starving to death on their pittance wages. We comsume more 'en masse' because the average citizen enjoys many more freedoms and opportunities thanks in part to our institutions developed over centuries of human knowledge. While it may not be perfect by anyone's standards it's certainly worth protecting and you can hardly hold it against NATO for enshining just that in it's doctrines.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think you'd find the people actually in charge in the 'non-western' world have just as much or more ignorance of their 'levels of consumption' and contempt for the environment than the 'Western-World.' It's not like the common serf in the developing world is being altruistic by starving to death on their pittance wages. We comsume more 'en masse' because the average citizen enjoys many more freedoms and opportunities thanks in part to our institutions developed over centuries of human knowledge. While it may not be perfect by anyone's standards it's certainly worth protecting and you can hardly hold it against NATO for enshining just that in it's doctrines.

The point is that it's not sustainable. It doesn't matter what we do relative to other parts of the world. Worth protecting? Definitely. Long term viable option? Not in the slightest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The point is that it's not sustainable. It doesn't matter what we do relative to other parts of the world. Worth protecting? Definitely. Long term viable option? Not in the slightest.

Freedom and opportunity is not a long term viable option?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Freedom and opportunity is not a long term viable option?

Obviously I'm talking about consumption.