Well, the what ifs are important.
But in this case, if use of force is justified *at all*, then the next question becomes, 'If the use of force is justified, does a country have a moral imperative to minimize it's own casualties as much as possible?'
Conversely, does it have a moral imperative to minimize enemy casualties wherever possible? Or in some cases, does the enemy forfeit all expectations of, for lack of a better term, kind treatment?
Take the idea that in WW2, an invasion of the Home Islands of Japan would cost millions of lives, between American servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and civilians. Two nukes and substantially fewer deaths all around, arguably, were the lesser of the two evils.
> Oh, and never justified means you are willing to watch someone torture, maim, blind and mutilate your friends and family (and yourself) because it only takes one side to start something. Anyone who says differently has no idea how cruel the world - and people - can be.
Personally, I agree. Violence begets violence (although not always; violence untempered with after-violence reconciliation certainly does) but pacifism begets slavery.
How so? Either the use of force a) requires no justification, b) can be sometimes justified, or c) is never justified. If b) we can discuss the 'sometimes.' If a) or c), there's no room for discussion.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, so to speak.
A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.
Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.
Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'
It's been a while since I read my 80s techno thrillers, but the idea was a nuke sub (or mobile land-based launchers, in theory, but I don't think they ever bothered with that) would use GPS to get an exact fix on where it was, and input that into the missiles as their start point for inertial navigation. This allowed for 'first-strike' capability, which required silly amounts of precision to hit hardened launch sites on short notice, before enemy C&C could authorize retaliatory strikes, and simultaneously denied the enemy the ability to perform a first-strike on you, as first they'd have to find your hidden SSBNs.
The GPS system was originally called 'NavStar,' as it was intended as a navigation aide. The missiles themselves were intended to be as autonomous as possible after launch; after all, the GPS satellites were easy to find and destroy, what with them broadcasting their locations.
So what would you rather have, a health-care system at the expense of some unneeded jobs, or a jobs-creation system at the expense of much-needed healthcare?
Or are you advocating for FDR style programs to employ Americans?
And the same is true of the states. Trying to cross the border from Canada into the States to start a job, transferring a Canadian company to it's brand new American owner, and getting stopped. Should have been a thirty second conversation with the border folks, under Trade NAFTA. Nope. I was trying to steal an American Jerb, and that was that.
The company started to lawyer up, but I declined to continue the process, and stayed in Canada. What can I say, I was young, and foolish. In retrospect, I made the correct choice.
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.