Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] the poetry of donald rumsfeld

[Clark McGrew]

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 15:07, Tom Lord wrote:
> Cool, a Godwin's instance.

This may be one of the few times it doesn't degenerate...

> What I meant by "logical sense" is:

[removed the argument for space, but it clearly stated the reasoning for
a preempting doctrine.]

Your analysis doesn't address the effects of a preemptive military
policy on global stability.  Namely, it creates a situation with strong
incentives to strike first.  It also presumes that the "Bad Guys", the
guys who are about to attack you, can in fact be correctly identified.  

If the "preemptive doctrine" is acceptable, where does that lead us? 
Saudi Arabia created the conditions to provide funds and people to carry
out 9/11.  Pakistan has actively proliferated nuclear tech.  North Korea
has made statements that it intends to sell nuclear technology.  China
has sold long range missile technology.  (Japan exports "Hello Kitty"). 
The US has shown a recent propensity to invade small countries.  What is
a "preemptable" threat?  Where do you draw the line?  Should North Korea
smuggle a nuke into Washington DC to preempt an invasion?  How can
preemption lead to a stable international community?  

Changing the subject ever so slightly, since you've used Hitler, I feel
free to mention Pearl Harbor... 

I've always thought that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a
classic example of "rational" preemption that went horribly wrong.  As I
understand the history, prior to Pearl Harbor the US was applying
pressure on the Japanese that in the view of Tokyo would eventually
require capitulation to the US.  I'm not suggesting that the US was
about to invade Japan, and frankly I doubt that many people in the US
considered the situation with Japan as that big an issue.  Bu, the
Japanese seem to have felt that the US had a program to strangle the
Japanese economy, and was making actions that could be interpreted as a
lead up to active military aggression.  Based on the perceived
intentions of the US, the Japanese could arguably be justified to
preemptively strike the gathered US forces.

What's the point?   The Japanese blew it and ended up with the war they
were trying to avoid.  The "preemptive doctrine" would seem to require
presentient leaders.  

-Clark
-- 
Clark McGrew                    Univ. at Stony Brook, Physics and Astronomy
<address@hidden>        631-632-8299