(no subject)
Forgive me if this is obvious, or has been said before; but reading an analysis of the Nuclear Posture Review that the Obama administration has just realised made me realise something. It was this part;
“The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.” Note the important caveat here: these assurances specifically do not apply to Tehran or Pyongyang unless they come into full compliance with the NPT. While acknowledging that this was intended to apply even in the event of a chemical or biological attack - which would be met with “a devastating conventional military response” - it did “reserve the right to make any adjustments in the assurance” based on the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons.
... that made me realise the most lethal weapon a country can own is a disregard for human life. If North Korea, say, launched a chemical or biological attack on the United States, the latter would be obliged to retaliate not only for inviolable and historically consistent "reasons of state", but also because of the great weight placed on American citizens' lives. The North Korean leader(s), however, would appear to be less concerned about the loss of their own citizens than the victory of the state, and so would be prepared to withstand greater losses than the U.S. would tolerate. (This is conjecture- what do you think?).
Instilling the value of human rights in other cultures, then, is not merely a moral project but a politically strategic one. If a nation has little respect for human life, then it will be prepared to throw away more of them in order to win. The fact that the U.S. has sustained 951 deaths in a whole nine years of war in Afghanistan tells you that as the shape of warfare has changed and become more remote and machine-led, there is an unrealistic faith in the possibility that one side in a war might sustain no fatalities. North Korea, however, no doubt inculcate their alleged "million-strong" army with tales of glory in return for their lives. The idea of "the absolute sacrifice" does evidently still exist in the U.S. and other coalition armies, but it seems less prevalent now than ever before.
In short, the immense weight we now put on human life, partly as a result of historical religious beliefs and partly as an effect of the grip that "human rights" now has on our moralities, means that the death of a mere one or two civilians might provoke an awesome attack of "devastation" towards the perpetrators. Why they might be sniggering behind their hands, however, is that they are not afraid of losing lives; the state in a way is a kind of aggregate suicide bomber, whose cause is something larger than its own life. That is what we have to fear the most.
“The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.” Note the important caveat here: these assurances specifically do not apply to Tehran or Pyongyang unless they come into full compliance with the NPT. While acknowledging that this was intended to apply even in the event of a chemical or biological attack - which would be met with “a devastating conventional military response” - it did “reserve the right to make any adjustments in the assurance” based on the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons.
... that made me realise the most lethal weapon a country can own is a disregard for human life. If North Korea, say, launched a chemical or biological attack on the United States, the latter would be obliged to retaliate not only for inviolable and historically consistent "reasons of state", but also because of the great weight placed on American citizens' lives. The North Korean leader(s), however, would appear to be less concerned about the loss of their own citizens than the victory of the state, and so would be prepared to withstand greater losses than the U.S. would tolerate. (This is conjecture- what do you think?).
Instilling the value of human rights in other cultures, then, is not merely a moral project but a politically strategic one. If a nation has little respect for human life, then it will be prepared to throw away more of them in order to win. The fact that the U.S. has sustained 951 deaths in a whole nine years of war in Afghanistan tells you that as the shape of warfare has changed and become more remote and machine-led, there is an unrealistic faith in the possibility that one side in a war might sustain no fatalities. North Korea, however, no doubt inculcate their alleged "million-strong" army with tales of glory in return for their lives. The idea of "the absolute sacrifice" does evidently still exist in the U.S. and other coalition armies, but it seems less prevalent now than ever before.
In short, the immense weight we now put on human life, partly as a result of historical religious beliefs and partly as an effect of the grip that "human rights" now has on our moralities, means that the death of a mere one or two civilians might provoke an awesome attack of "devastation" towards the perpetrators. Why they might be sniggering behind their hands, however, is that they are not afraid of losing lives; the state in a way is a kind of aggregate suicide bomber, whose cause is something larger than its own life. That is what we have to fear the most.