Skip to main content

View Diary: Kos - I respectfully disagree (270 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a bit narrow-minded. (0+ / 0-)

    My point is that chemical and nuclear warfare affect the environment. Thus, the physical health of survivors and their children is also effected. That's only one example, and I could come up with other differences too. "External observers," as you put it, are physically affected.

    The point of having treaties banning chemical warfare is because their potential for destruction is greater. And as I have pointed out in one example, destruction does not always mean death.

    And "mutually assured destruction" is a justification for not using advanced weaponry. Why? Because everyone dies! Nuclear warfare on a scale that large would not only kill a lot of people, but also damn the existence of humans altogether. Death is not death.

    I do not support involvement in Syria personally, but I do see a clear difference between different types of weaponry. Saying "death is death," is a very narrow-minded view of reality. We are stewards of this world.

    •  Ummmm.... (0+ / 0-)

          Well, it all depends on the distance the external observer is away from the scene. American audiences eating popcorn in movie theaters across the country cheered newsreel film of Japanese cities burning.
            Yes, you are certainly right that different weaponry has different levels of destructive capability, and also correct that one can be wounded rather than killed outright. But the morality of this entire business is rather fuzzy. Yes, chemical weapons can affect the health of children, perhaps...though I don't know this for sure..even grandchildren. But if a man is shot dead, all of his potential children are never born. How do you weigh the ethics of that? 50 million people died in World War II, almost entirely from conventional weapons. Would it have been morally better if chemical weapons had been used and the total of injured (thus able to live and have children) had been higher and the death toll lower? I don't know. I have no idea. It's like trying to weigh Stalin's mass murders against Hitler's and playing "Who was the more evil?" In matters like this, all moral judgements seem arbitrary.
           My point about treaties is that they will be ignored by any power that feels a need to do so. Cf. The Locarno Treaty which solemnly pledged Germany and France would never go to war again, in 1925.
          I don't think you see my point about MAD. You may be young, but those of us over 30 lived in a society which was both willing AND able to kill everyone. Everyone. What did I do to stop this? Nothing. What did my fellow citizens of the US and other atomic powers do to stop this? Nothing. It was mere luck that we are here, alive today. So except for a tiny number of anti-bomb protesters like the Berrigans, everyone over 30 is an accessory before the fact to universal genocide. (and notice that there are still thousands of H bombs ready and waiting today) So how are we in any moral or "legal" position to lob cruise missiles into Syria because we object to how they kill people?

      "Something has gone very wrong with America, not just its economy, but its ability to function as a democratic nation. And it’s hard to see when or how that wrongness will get fixed." Paul Krugman and Robin Wells

      by Reston history guy on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:56:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site