So does this argument work both ways? (read details)?

Question

Imagine this scenario: shortly after the American led invasion of Iraq Saddam and his government were able to detonate a nuke in a major American city killing more than 100,000 people. Would the following facts in this scenario be convincing to you that this was a justifiable action by the Iraqi government? Why or why not?

-Iraq cites the fact that America, not Iraq, was the aggressor. America invaded Iraq; Iraq did not attack America first.

-in order to save the "thousands of Iraqi lives" that an Iraqi led invasion into the American homeland would cause the use of nuclear weapons was justifiable to this person and the Iraqi government.

-Iraq had repeatedly warned the US that it had "WMD" that it would use to defend itself if America did not end the war immediately, instead, America presses on and Saddam again is able to detonate a nuke in another major US city.

Does this sound like familiar rhetoric used to defend any of America's actions during wartime in the past?

I am not asking about modern day repercussions; modern day politics, etc; what I am asking is simply a matter of logic. These are the justifications you will routinely hear in favor of some of Americas actions regarding other instances in America's history, so I give you those reasons applied AGAINST America instead of for it....so, do you still think the reasons are logical?

so far, no one has actually answered the question

This is for h h:
One mans "speculation" is another's abstract thinking. If you can't comprehend analogy or don't see the value in comparative reasoning, then I recommend you not try it. You might hurt yourself. And no, if your aunt had balls, that would make her either a hermaphrodite or a transgender person.

h.h. i see you removed your question "if my aunt had balls, would that make her my uncle"

good call. that makes you look childish.

h.h.
this is not "my" logic. this is the justifications of OTHERS applied to a different scenario

this is easy to understand, no?

ok hh i see where you stand. so i guess the civilian targets that America has bombed in the past (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) ALL had "military and tactical" value, thereby not making them "terrorist" action. i disagree, and if you want to talk about *illogical* and untrue, then THATS a good one for you right there.

please spare me the UN bs, everyone knows America OWNS the UN. we could build a weapon that could sodomize your great grandchildren while causing them to burst into flames and not get cited by the UN....please

REK T. THANK YOU FOR PERHAPS THE BEST ANSWER TO ANY OF MY QUESTIONS ON Y....EVER.

hh, you are DEAD wrong
Dresden was a city with a booming textile industry. it had NO MILITARY value. THERE WERE NO MILITARY FORTIFICATIONS, BASES, ETC IN DRESDEN.
please get your history straight guys instead of just ASSUMING that everything that America does militarily is for a military objective

i don't know about the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. at least I'm honest. they may have had some military value, but the overwhelming amount of people that died during those 2 bombs were civilians. that is indisputable

Sorry hh, now you’ve succeeded in completely contradicting yourself. You began by drawing a distinction between terrorists and legitimate military action by making a distinction between causing violence for the sake of a strategic military objective and causing violence against an unarmed population with no such objective, yet now you rationalize why America attacked a civilian population (Dresden) for an indirect military objective. Don't you think those we call terrorists also attacked us with some ulterior motive other than just causing fear? They hit us on 9/11 in an attempt to disrupt the economy and commerce of the US at large, which is also done by so-called "legitimate" military forces, and they did it by attacking a civilian population, JUST LIKE AMERICA HAS for a MILITARY OBJECTIVE. Out of one side of your mouth you say it is terrorism to strike at civilian populations, and then you tell me America did just that for a military objective

Really hh do you think it is important to quibble over "intentions"? Who cares what a terrorist or governments intention is? What matters is reality. Does it really matter why a civilian population is attacked and by whom? Do the dead really care about the circumstances of their death?

My whole point with this question was to illustrate that any distinction or justification for any kind of violence is morally and ethically indefensible, whether you want to call it terrorism or “protecting national security”. It may be NECESSARY to engage in violence from time to time as either a person or as nation, but do not try and make it MORALLY RIGHT. Everyone will do what they have to do to protect themselves and their families and their way of life and people will end up dead. That’s just the way it goes.

Answer 1

Actually the secnario would work like this.
We bomb Iraqs main harbor taking out it's Naval capability.
Iraq responds by declaring war on us and attacking Britian as it is are main ally.
Iraq fights a 2 sided war for at least 6-10 years, with losses in the hundreds of thousands. Then to gain a tactical advantage Iraq attacks Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska. After several months of fighting they have losses in this area upwards of the 20-30 thousand range. America has losses in the 40-100 thousand range. As Iraq gets closer to Attacking Mainland America president Bush arms every American citzen and orders them to fight to the death. Iraq is almost finished attacking Britan but has sacrificed 100's of thousands of lives. It also realizes that it will split Britan with Iran who will eventually force them out and declare it a muslim country. Iraq wants America and Britain to remain free so it most keep Iran from attacking America with it. So it unleashes a horribly devstating weapon and kills 200,000 thousand people in Topeka Kansas. Nevermind that nearly 500,000 are burning to death from the extensive carpet bombing in New York. After 3 days Iraq sends a plane to drop another weapon and bombs Syracuse New York. America surrenders. Iraq sends the nearly 500,00 thousand troops it had ten miles off the coast home. Saving lives. After 10 years America becomes an industrial super power, 50 years it is a Super power with Iraq as it's strongest ally.

Answer 2

I do not see how detonating two atomic weapons in the United States would force a surrender. The more likely result would be a response would be swit and severe. Additionally simply by using or even claiming to have WMDs, Saddam would have given justification for the invasion.

I see what you are attempting to argue, but you can not make arguments like this in a vacume. The use of atomic weapons in Japan worked because they did not have any weapon system nearly as destructive or the capability to deliver them if they did. It was the fear of a sustained attack with atomic weapons which lead to the surrender. As a side note, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets of military segnificance. Hiroshima was home to Japan's 2nd Army headquarters and Nagasaki was a military industrial center. Even if they were purely civilian targets, I would challenge you to name a major military power that has not attacked civilian targets.

--> Of course it is indisputable that a majority of those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian. A conventional bombing of those cities would not have likely forced a surrender though. Of course it also indisputable that more civilians were killed by the Japanese both though conventional weapons and WMDs.

Answer 3

I get it, you think it was a war crime to drop the bombs in Japan. Fine. Nothing anybody will say here will change your mind. Even though any other action would have led to millions of Japanese deaths, and possibly 5-10 more years of WWII by some estimates.

Your scenario would have just proved that Bush was right and Saddam did have WMDs that he was not supposed to have had according to the UN mandates. So in other words, according to you, it was okay for the Iraq to defy the UN in your scenario.

As I have said a few times now, the bombs dropped on Japan actually saved millions of Japanese as well.

So no, that would not justify this case in your scenario. US lives would not be saved by that action.

Again, it is easy for someone like you to look backward with 20/20 hindsight, it is something else to look this situation in the face. The Allies were looking at invading massive islands filled with millions of people that showed evidence of surender and they were going to fight to the death with Static Defenses, Kamakazi and Banzai Attacks. That they were arming thier entire civilian population. Im curious, what would your choice have been if you were in the Allies shoes? Slaughter millions? Starve millions? Gas millions? Surrender? The key to defeating Japan was destroying their will. It took two atom bombs to do that. If you think those two atom bombs were slaughter, how would you feel if 5 million Japanese died in an invasion or from starvation? Or maybe 10 million in a gas attack?

Edit---->

The US owns the UN? LOL Thats the best one I have heard all day.

Answer 4

if you don't have the argument correct, you cannot assume it works both ways. First you say " Saddam and his government were able to detonate a nuke in a major American city killing more than 100,000 people." It would have to say something more along these lines. Saddam and his government were able to detonate a nuke on a major American military target and happened to kill more than 100,000 people that were armed and trained for combat even though they were technically civilians. No, this still wouldn't work both ways as you put it, because you do not take governmental intent into your argument. You do not take into account what is going on in America vs what was going on in Japan when you make your argument. What I am talking about is the death rate of captives and people in occupied lands and chemical weapons testing Japan was performing at the time. Basically, what I am saying is that you are missing many crucial points to your arguments if you are wanting to make it comparable with what happened in Japan when we dropped nukes. Hit the books a bit more, then you can correctly make comparisons. See this is the problem with people like you. You FEEL what happened in Japan and Iraq is wrong, regardless of the facts out there that support the opposite, and then you vilify Americans because of your feelings and not what actually happened. Like I said before, hit the books.

Answer 5

You Stated "so, do you still think the reasons are logical?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No they are not logical due to the fact that your premises are not true, therefore your argument is not valid or sound.

I could explain it to you but you know why your premises are not true. An argument is valid when the conclusion cannot be false when the premises are true.

An argument cannot be sound unless it is first valid.

Your premises are not true therefore your argument cannot be valid first and foremost, and definitely cannot be sound.

You wanted logical scrutiny there you have it, your logic is flawed, invalid, untrue, and unsound.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You asked "Imagine this scenario: shortly after the American led invasion of Iraq Saddam and his government were able to detonate a nuke in a major American city killing more than 100,000 people. Would the following facts in this scenario be convincing to you that this was a justifiable action by the Iraqi government? Why or why not?"

My Answer: Is the major American city being attacked for its military value or simply to kill civilians? I would not consider this a justifiable action on behalf of the Iraqi forces, why not detonate a nuclear device against the invading enemy?

This scenario is all based on premises that are not true.

This so called "comparative analysis" looks suspiciously like political rhetoric based on an agenda that is not based in logical reasoning. You may attempt to hide behind it but those who us who know better can pick you out of the crowd very easily.
---------------------------------------------------------
You asked "Does this sound like familiar rhetoric used to defend any of America's actions during wartime in the past?"

My Answer: Yes it most certainly does sound like the familiar rhetoric used to defend America's actions in wartime. YOU HAVE ENGINEERED A LOGICALLY FALSE ARGUEMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
-----------------------------------------------------
You stated "this is not "my" logic. this is the justifications of OTHERS applied to a different scenario

this is easy to understand, no?"

My Answer: Yes I can understand, however you don’t seem to understand that this is your logic since you are making an argument. Your argument however is invalid and unsound because it is based on untrue premises.

Hypothetical situations are good for Hollywood, not logic.

Your analogy of "familiar rhetoric" implies deception, ulterior motives, or maybe the fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Man Chu or something I don’t know. However in the real world, your logical analysis simply is not the case.

Had you used true premises to make your argument then maybe it would be valid. It is not valid to me, therefore it is unsound.
---------------------------------------
You stated "h.h. i see you removed your question "if my aunt had balls, would that make her my uncle"

good call. that makes you look childish."

My answer: My sense of humor often overpowers my academic side. Apologies..
---------------------------------------
You stated "ok hh i see where you stand. so i guess the civilian targets that America has bombed in the past (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) ALL had "military and tactical" value, thereby not making them "terrorist" action. i disagree, and if you want to talk about *illogical* and untrue, then THATS a good one for you right there"

My Answer: Thats exactly why those targets were attacked. You really need to research those targets aside from just looking at casualty counts. Those were military targets attacked with the technology they had available at the time. There were no "precision-guided" weapons in WW2. It was messy. If finding the truth is something you wish to do then go look up the reasons for attacking those three targets on your own, I am not going to do the research for you and then list them. Call it laziness....However the fact remains that I am right, and you sir are wrong. They were military targets attacked with the crude weapons they had available at the time, therefore a large number of collateral damage was inflicted. That does not negate the need to attack the military targets indicated. Had the members of the Armed Forces involved moved those targets out of population centers then the collateral damage would have lessened. This movement of high priority targets into populated areas is a very familiar tactic employed by those who oppose the US in any conflict. The US likes to be the good guys, the enemy in almost every conflict invariably uses that to their advantage. Why do current militia groups in Iraq use religious buildings to house, train, and equip insurgents? It is the same priciple but on a smaller scale.
Look up why those targets were attacked, you obviously do not know.
--------------------------------------------
You stated "hh, you are DEAD wrong
Dresden was a city with a booming textile industry. it had NO MILITARY value. THERE WERE NO MILITARY FORTIFICATIONS, BASES, ETC IN DRESDEN.
please get your history straight guys instead of just ASSUMING that everything that America does militarily is for a military objective"

My Answer: I have been studying military history for about 25 years now. Dead wrong on this subject is not likely....

Dresden was bombed in conjunction with the Soviet offensive to limit the Germans ability to switch back and forth between the UK/US and the Soviet lines.

Put Plainly Dresden was bombed due to its location not what the city produced. Bombing Dresden limited German Army movement here is why "The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had come to the conclusion that the Germans could reinforce their eastern front with up to 42 divisions (half a million men) from other fronts and that, if the Soviet advance could be helped by hindering that movement, it could shorten the war. "

The city was bombed due to strategic location in that it was a major cross roads used in the interior lines of the German Army. The bombing although regrettable was designed to shorten the war and LIMIT ENEMY MILITARY MOVEMENT, NOT KILL CIVILIANS. Did civilians die during this attack? Yes many did, but the intention of the attack was to limit the movement of the German Army.

Once again they had to attempt to do so with the technology at the time, therefore it was messy.

You are the one who is DEAD WRONG. BTW the British not the Americans are the ones who ordered Operation Thunderclap...which is the operation that included the attack on Dresden..So although American planes were used it was under British command and it was their operation.

Do I really need to list why Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were attacked? I can tell you right now before I even go there I can promise that I will prove your supposition wrong.

Answer 6

Great question. Leaving out all the facts about not following the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War (which is a lot of facts), but nevertheless, putting that aside, the answer would clearly be a subjective one.

Being that every country works by the same thought process and we are all equal in that regard, not only are we not wrong in doing it, but our government has the moral responsibility to do it to protect us. Just as their government should protect them. Thank God we got the better weapons and intelligence and capabilities. Unfortunately, the world has been like this since the beginning of time.

Answer 7

First of all it is war and there would not need to be any justification for the actions of either side. War is to the knife, one side will cease to exist at least in the current political existence. IE Germany and Japan after WWII.
Only a fool trys to "justify or make war legal"!

Note: American Policy is use of a WMD on the USA would result in unrestricted total warfare against the country that uses them against the USA. Trying to separate nation states of the former Caliphate from their religion is impossible. The fundamental Islamic religious leaders have declared war on the USA and her culture. From their point of view this war is literally to the knife, either they or we will be exterminated as a nation, culture, religion(or group of religions).

As for the rhetoric use to defend America's actions, bullshit! Our actions were justified on 9-11-2001. War was declared against us and there are no neutral nations on this planets. If you have a problem with this reality then you need to get over it or you will have committed suicide by blind stupidity.

Answer 8

Your scenario does not hold water.

The United States did not lose a war to Iraq and then sign a treaty agreeing to certain terms which the US then violated repeatedly.
The United States was not warned by the UN on 14 different occassions to stand down on weapons development.
The United States did not throw out UN weapons inspectors.
The United States did not repeatedly try to shoot down Iraq jets going about their legal business in the no-fly zones.
Iraq (in your scenario) attacked civilians and not the command structure of the US.

So as I said, your scenario does not hold water.

Answer 9

No, the politics have changed since WWII. Back then, we had the only atomic bomb. Now, everybody's got one, so setting off a nuke against a nuclear power leaves you open to retaliation. I'll bet Iraq would have looked really pretty as the new Glass Sea, in your scenario.

Answer 10

This would have made the Iraq War far easier to execute for the US.

Edit to add:

To answer your question, yes, Saddam's hypothetical nuking of the US would be justifiable and the US would be at fault for not perceiving this threat and not enacting countermeasures to prevent its occurrence.