L's Q&A: Preemptive Attacks
Q: If we attack people preemptively, what if other people start attacking us preemptively?
A: The West is not a threat. It doesn't make sense to say people will attack us 'preemprively', because we were not going to attack. (Same argument applies for any moral person/group/country/whatever.)
A: The West is not a threat. It doesn't make sense to say people will attack us 'preemprively', because we were not going to attack. (Same argument applies for any moral person/group/country/whatever.)
You become a threat to him the moment you pull out the gun. Intentions and reasons are irrelevant to that.
Your intentions are only relevant when he is trying to form a theory of why you are pointing a gun at him. His theory allows him to make predictions about how you will respond to his actions. If his theory is correct, then he'll predict that continuing to brandish a knife at you will get him shot at, and that putting the knife away will see you lower the gun.
If his theory is wrong, though, we have a problem. Maybe his theory is that you've pulled the gun on him because the sight of him holding a knife is mortally offensive to you, and even if he drops it now, you're still going to shoot him anyway. Under that theory, he reasons that he should go ahead and try to stab you before you get the chance.
What's worse is if somebody else sees you shoot him, and conjectures that he was reaching for the loaf of bread behind you (regardless of whether he actually was or not). Now, to them, you look like a paranoid lunatic who'll shoot people unpredictably, and it'd be sensible for them to run away, shout for help, or take you down themselves (depending on what they think their capabilities are).
In short: pre-emptive attacks will work OK provided everybody correctly understands why you're they're happening. The more uncertainty there is about your stated reasons for attacking pre-emptively, the more you'll look like a paranoid lunatic.
To what extent should we humour paranoid lunatics?
"The West goes to great lengths to not even defend against its enemies. You have to be pretty fucked up to get on the West's 'shit, they might attack us' list."
How well-understood do you really think that is amongst the countries who end up on that list?
Think about how many people still aren't persuaded that WMDs were the reason for invading Iraq, even in the West. The case for WMDs, even if it was absolutely rock-solid within the Western military and governments, hasn't been made strongly enough to the Western public - and if it's not been made strongly to the western public, do you think it's been made any more strongly to the middle-eastern governments?
"If you reasonably think the West might pre-emptively attack, maybe you should try to work out why, and reassure the West somehow."
"Reasonably" is subjective. And, as I asked before, if you think the West might pre-emptively attack but you think they're paranoid lunatics, to what extent should you humour them? Should you avoid all development of nuclear power just so there's no hint of the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, regardless of the benefits that nuclear power would bring to you?
"You don't even have to not appear like a bloodthirsty lunatic -- all you need to do is make sure you don't look like a bloodthirsty lunatic *who will attack the West or its allies*. You can even attack your neighbours if you want, as long as it doesn't seem like it will go on to the US or its allies. This shouldn't be too difficult."
Iraq claimed it didn't have WMDs. It will have claimed this not just to the US, but also to its neighbouring countries, to countries like Iran. The US says it's lying, that it does have WMDs. You're Iran: Who do you believe? The country with very close values and culture to your own, or the infidels halfway across the world? If the former, if you believe Iraq isn't threatening the West, and then the West attacks Iraq, then that refutes a theory that the West will only attack those who threaten it.
Reply
Leave a comment