Just because I am against any sort of violation of the right to own and to carry weapons, it doesn't mean I think everyone should have nukes. I'm opposed to anyone owning nuclear weapons-- especially governments. (But I'm also opposed to government employees possessing any sort of weapon while on the "job". They have proven they can never be trusted.)
I can't figure out how anyone could ever use nukes (on Earth, anyway) strictly defensively without damaging the life, liberty, or property of innocents ("collateral damage"). If you can't do something without archating, then it can't be a right.
Yes, I realize possessing nuclear weapons isn't the same as using them. Is not possessing nukes a credible threat to use them, which necessarily means archating? If not, then I'm wrong.
Being against the possession of nuclear weapons doesn't mean I want governments banning them from private hands. That's worse than letting the fox guard the henhouse. Much worse. Government doesn't have the right, nor does it have the imaginary quality called "authority", to forbid others from owning anything, including nuclear weapons.
Added 3-29-2018:
Here's a further explanation by someone who may know better than me why the "deterrence" of nukes is BS-- link
"I can't figure out how anyone could ever use nukes (on Earth, anyway) strictly defensively without damaging the life, liberty, or property of innocents ("collateral damage"). If you can't do something without archating, then it can't be a right."
ReplyDeleteIf there were an army in the desert on their way to invade your town, a tactical nuke (about 100kt) would be ideal for annihilating it. Okay, so you may kill a few animals or whatever, but it's not the same as nuking a populated area.
"Yes, I realize possessing nuclear weapons isn't the same as using them. Is not possessing nukes a credible threat to use them, which necessarily means archating? If not, then I'm wrong."
Is packing a gun intent to kill, intent to violate? No, ...so what's different about owning a nuke? If you can be responsible with a knife or gun or any other weapon, why not a nuke?
"If you can be responsible with a knife or gun or any other weapon, why not a nuke?"
DeleteBecause I still don't believe it is ever possible to use nukes only defensively. Even in your desert scenario, you will be violating people downwind with fallout. Desert land can also be owned and lived on, and I have friends there.
I think they can indeed be used defensively, in limited circumstances, of course. But I think you are confusing the indiscriminate nature of nukes with offense/defense.
DeleteA bomb kills indiscriminately. But as long as the blast range doesn't include the innocent, then it can be used defensively. And that is true whether it is a grenade, C4 or a nuclear warhead. What I mean is that it can be used discriminantly.
To address the fallout issues. Would you refrain from using it if it meant defeat or death? That roving army in the desert outnumbers your forces 20-1 with superior firepower, with the exception of your nukes. Do you spare the few in the desert for reasons of ethics, surrender everything you've worked for, watch your family be raped and beaten before they kill you and take all your stuff?
Hell no. You're going to nuke those fukers and feel 'good' about it. Sorry desert friends.
Do you not have a right to defense on account of those few in the desert? Does it somehow supersede your rights if that is the only practical solution?
"A bomb kills indiscriminately. But as long as the blast range doesn't include the innocent, then it can be used defensively."
DeleteYou also have no right to damage the property of the innocent. A grenade's damage is limited to the blast sphere, a nuke's damage isn't. Even a small one.
You don't have the right to violate the life, liberty, or property of the innocent. If you feel you "must", then do it and accept the consequences. That's what I have said about the ZAP all along.
"You also have no right to damage the property of the innocent. A grenade's damage is limited to the blast sphere, a nuke's damage isn't. Even a small one."
DeleteBut it does have a range. If that range is 50 miles, and there is nothing within 100 miles of the target, then who are you harming? No one, maybe a few tortoises and coyotes, but nothing otherwise. In that example, it is being used discriminantly, defensively.
Okay, so if your village had nukes and reserved them only for such circumstance, how is it any different than any other weapon?
For all intents and purposes, it is the same difference between aiming a rifle at a specific target vs spraying a crowd of 30 because 10 of them are a threat. You can just as easily decide to not fire until it is safe and clear of innocents.
That only works if no one owns the land you nuke. And if weather conditions don't spread the fallout over owned property or innocent individuals. If you fire a bullet, and it remains capable of continuing to harm people for decades after you've killed the aggressor, you are responsible for reclaiming the bullet and making sure it isn't going to do any more harm. If you clean up your radioactivity, then I would say, according to your scenario, you have used a nuke defensively.
DeleteI wouldn't own one, because while I can accurately aim a rifle bullet, I don't think I can sufficiently contain the nuclear damage. And I think anyone who believes they can is either lying or ignorant. I simply don't think it's possible in the real world.
Perceivably, if it were under such strict conditions and you used "clean" Hydrogen Bombs to minimize the environmental impact, you would be within some range of what is an 'acceptable' or reasonable use of a nuclear weapon.
DeleteIf you have a "nuke 'em or die" scenario where there is no one for many many miles and no one owns the vast wilderness, and you use small hydrogen bombs, how much of an argument do you really have for a charge of violence upon the innocent?
Okay, so mark the area off and label it radioactive for the next few decades so no one wanders into it.
If you use a rifle or pistol, stray rounds may be hazard too innocent bystanders. Also, they release lead, both as a solid but also as dust and vapor, into the environment which is also a hazard. While the potential for collateral injury and damage is of a much, much smaller scale, it is not zero.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to argue that nuclear weapons should be kept out of private hands because they are too dangerous, then firearms must also be restricted for similar reasons. If an arbitrary decision regarding the scale of hazard is all that is required to justify archation, then all archation is justifiable.
The purpose of a nuclear weapon is defense by mutually assured destruction - if you attack me, I will likely be destroyed, but I will destroy you and everything you hold dear. At best you will discover the meaning of Pyrrhic victory. So, the purpose of nuclear weapons is not use, but the threat of potential use. To make aggression so costly that it is not a viable option.
This is no different than having a cannon or a flamethrower. Only the scale is different. All violence has potential for collateral damage. You can try to minimize those risks, but they cannot be eliminated. Nor are they a justification for archation.
I never said anything about keeping nuclear weapons out of private hands, nor would I ever make the false distinction between private hands and government arsenals. I just question whether it is actually possible, in the real world, to use them defensively without harming the innocent (or their property). And, if you cause harm by any action-- shooting a gun or detonating a nuke-- you are responsible for restitution to any innocent you have harmed. Period.
DeleteThen the question is one of evidence that someone has suffered some harm, whether it be from nuclear fallout or lead contamination or powder residues.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to worry about residual harms as the basis for whether a weapon can be used, then no modern weapon can be used.
There is a difference between the harm of normal modern weapons and nuclear weapons. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind.
DeleteHey Kent,
ReplyDeleteI'm undecided on whether supporting banning civilian ownership of nukes is consistent with living as a principled libertarian, for the following reasons:
1) Slippery slope. A "yes, but ..." approach to the RTKBA, even for nukes, opens the door to the "well, so you're saying that if a weapon is deadly enough, it's OK for us to ban it? Well, then tanks, artillery, and machine guns meet that criteria, yeah?" argument.
2) Micro-nukes. If one can manufacture a nuke small enough to just take out the capitol building or the white house, can't one argue that anyone who works there is not a civilian subject to collateral damage, but an active participant? It's then just a matter of avoiding times when tours are taking place.
3) Fighting back against a total state. If something along the lines of the tyrannical society in 1984 were to be put in place in the U.S., step by well meaning step, and taking out DC could end that state, would you avoid taking that step to avoid the collateral damage, in a society where EVERYONE would be currently being treated as collateral damage?
All that being said, I've been on the receiving end of weapons grade crazy. That specific individual should not have the ability to take out a city due to a fit of pique. Standard disclaimer: I include pretty much every elected official in the federal government plus SCOTUS under the category of weapons grade crazy.
I don't support banning anyone from having nukes-- that "authority" can't exist. I just don't trust anyone who has them, and I don't think anyone "should" have them. But I certainly don't pretend I have the right to forbid anyone from having them. It's just my personal preference.
DeleteCheck out the addition (3-29-2018) to the bottom of the column.
ReplyDelete