Killing scientists so they can't develope a nuclear bomb?
How horrible.
Is our reputation sullied by the acts of a "friend" like Israel? In our personal lives most of us wouldn't hang out with hit men, so why have our interstate relationships sunk so low?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

As to killing scientists to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons, well, this shows us the way in which some people prioritize things ethically - that for them it is better to have killed an individual and prevented a catastrophe. While we might wish to use other tools, such as diplomacy or economic sanctions or whatever, these people might believe that violence is the only set of tools available to them. Or perhaps they think that the timing is the most important part - and that violence is quickest. Or perhaps they are just angry people.

Would I do the same? (Apart from the fact that I am probably too much of a wuss to actually kill someone?) I suppose that it is my tendency to think that if violence is the only way to achieve something, then that something is out of my control, but this ignores the idea that no one might be better placed than I am. If I was considering killing someone, I would have to be absolutely certain that they were going to do the thing that they were going to do - no doubts whatsoever, or I wouldn't do it.

This is, to me, one of those lose-lose situations.

(Mind you, I don't know enough about the exact circumstances of the people in the article, but I do like the hypothetical scenario.)

So you feel it's OK to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner if it suits your own ends?
That's scary!

I don't think that's what I said at all.

I think I did comment that perhaps these people had assessed the situation in such a way that they thought they were in the only position to make a change. At that point, they must make an ethical decision (whether or not they were mistaken about themselves being the only people in a position of control). But they can't not make an ethical decision, because deciding not to act is still a decision.

In my hypothetical (as much as I sketched it out) I did say that I would not take any violent action - but, if I somehow I recognised that I was the only person in a position to make a change, and that violent action was the only was to carry out that change, then I would have to think about it.

Does this make me judge, jury and executioner? I suppose - as much as anyone making an ethical decision is the judge, and in this hypothetical situation, in which I have described violence as the only known means, yes, that would make me an executioner. But we cannot escape being judge - at some point all of us have to make a decision one way or another on an issue, at the point when we feel either that there is no further information or no further time. If the decision involves violence and death, then we are also the executioner. If it does not, then we are just the judge. But note I did not advocate that violence was the best means, but I did ponder how I would act if I thought it was. And I feel that it is best to act with knowledge and evidence than without, especially when the results are extreme (i.e. taking a life).

Am I doing this for my own ends? Well, every ethical decision has some sort of basic ethical assumptions underneath it. A utilitarianist would probably advocate the killing of one if it saved thousands. Is this for his own ends? In fact, the entire idea of ethics is that it is not simply for one's own ends, but something more objective - although, as we see on this forum not everyone can agree what. I don't think I wrote anything that indicated it was solely "for my own ends".

Keep in mind our President Obama hangs out with unrepentent terrorist bombers.

Mcfate,
I don't want to get too tied up in knots, however, it occured to me that this act of, I think we can assume, Israel, is taking pre emptive to knew heights.
It's seems a logical progression from this killing to the thinking of the Pol Pot regime where all educated people were executed to avoid any possibility they might challenge the dictator's monopoly of power.

Patrick
Well unrepentent terrorist bombers are murderers too. Who are the ones that Mr Obama hangs out with? As the only democratic country in the middle east Israel has an example to set.

Well, I rather like knots. In the hypothetical situation, I said that I personally would consider violence:

a) if, due to time or other constraints, there was no non-violent alternative
b) if the situation meant that the violence would be more ethical than doing nothing (in the example, a nuke going off, say), and
c) there is enough information to discern that (a) and (b) are both true

I would judge the situation through these three criteria, at least.

Let's say it is Israel carrying out these assassinations. How does it meet the criteria above?

a) they don't seem as time constrained (there is no nuke just about to go off as far as I know, although Iran may be trying), and they have a range of powerful friends, all with economic and diplomatic tools. So I think they fail to meet this criteria.
b) it is possible that one life lost is better than a nuke going off in a populated area, so they might pass this one, except
c) there's really not enough accurate information out there. Especially as they seemed to have targeted a quantum mechanics specialist, who would not work on a nuclear bomb. So it seems like they fail this one too.

I mean, that's assuming we have accurate information.

So, in the name of knots and ethical discussion, what criteria would anyone else judge this situation by?

In general I think the onus is very much on the assassin to justify his assassination. Most ethical systems have a strong preference against killing people except in exceptional situations, and an even stronger preference against assassinations.

Our problem here is that Israel – if indeed they are responsible – has not admitted responsibility, and therefore has offered no justification. Assume for the purpose of the discussion that they did do this. We can speculate about justifications they might offer, but what we can say must be very speculative; we don’t know what facts/information they are working from.

But, in addition to the factors you mention, there is a further one; Israel itself is well-known to have nuclear weapons. Evidently she claims for herself a right which she does not accord to other countries, namely, to decide for themselves whether or not to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems to me that, apart from justifying the specific tactic of assassination, Israel would also have to justify acting so as to impose on another country Israel’s judgment as to whether that other country may exercise a right which Israel claims, and exercises, for herself.

This is a good point. I was thinking a bit too much about what it would take me to kill someone, and less about the real-world situation.



Can you imagine a hypothetical which would justify yourself carrying out an assassination? Or is it never justifiable? (Be as non-real-world as you like - you can describe conditions that are too unlikely to take seriously and I will still find them thought-provoking).

I'm afraid it's a bit worse than that, Patrickt. The US is the only government actually to have deployed nuclear weapons in combat, against an enemy which did not possess nuclear weapons, against an undefended target in which it was a moral certainty that the overwhelming bulk of victims would be civilian noncombatants, to prosecute a war in which eventual victory for the US was already certain.

And the US defence policy ever since, under administrations from both parties, has been that, if they choose to, they will do the same again. All US presidents - Obama included - are therefore guilty of rather greater moral failings than simply "hanging out" with unrepentant terrorist bombers.

I don't say this to attack the US. Rather, my point is that if a stable, democratic and accountable government will act in this way, then there is almost certainly no government which won't.

Well, people tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Suppose that in July 1944 I were in a position to assassinate Hitler, and suppose also that I knew then what is generally known today about the Holocaust. If I did not try to assassinate Adolf Hitler in that circumstance, it would more likely be due to fear for myself or for my family than to moral scruples about whether the act was justified.

Yes, I might be in the same boat. But it is the knowing "what is generally known today about the Holocaust" that is the kicker. I mean, considering circumstances, time, etc. I don't think it is unfair to say that there were a huge amount of available non-violent options, and I sincerely think that it would have halted further, greater violence and atrocity. But we have to know that, and know what is going on, before we can ultimately morally make that decision. I think there was probably sufficient knowledge at the time to make this decision, and any further knowledge just cements it.

Of course, this is all based upon the idea that less suffering/death/violence is 'better' than more, but that's an even more abstract conversation for another thread.



I think you will call me naive, but I think perhaps this will not happen again. I'm not claiming there will never be another nuclear strike, but I think the mindset for strike number three will be quite different, if it happens. The world (or rather, the people in governing roles in nation-states) hasn't necessarily "grown up", but it has changed, and it does take into account the reactions to things that happened in the past.

Well, I hope you’re right - but I fear you’re wrong. As I pointed out, US government policy has consistently been that they may be the first combatant in a conflict to use nuclear weapons; that they may use nuclear weapons against an enemy which does not possess them; that they may use nuclear weapons against noncombatant targets. I’ve no reason to think that they are fibbing.

And, it should be pointed out, while there has been considerable debate over the morality of the decision in 1945 to use nuclear weapons against Japanese cities, the US has never really paid any very great military, diplomatic, economic or political price for that act. In fact it still enjoys widespread support, especially – unsurprisingly – in the US.

So what might lead them to take a different approach today? The main difference between the 1945 situation and later situations is that, since 1949, there has been more than one nuclear power in the world, and some uses at least of nuclear weapons might have led to retaliation in kind. Probably this is the reason why the US didn’t use nuclear weapons in, e.g., Korea or Vietnam.

What this suggests is that the main factor which prevents a nuclear power from deploying nuclear weapons is the fear of suffering nuclear attack themselves. And this, of course, is the logic which sustained mutual deterrence for so long.

Unfortunately, it is also the logic which leads states to conclude that, to protect themselves from nuclear attack, they must either acquire their own nuclear weapons, ally themselves with a country which already has nuclear weapons, or – preferably - both. It creates, in short, the incentive for both the Irans and the Israels of this world to equip themselves with nuclear weapons.

All of which leads me to two conclusions:

First, having adopted a strategy more or less designed to encourage the likes of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the US and its allies can hardly act all surprised – or disclaim all responsibility - if Iran tries to do precisely that. And one of the factors to be taken into account when we consider the moral responsibility for these assassinations is the question of whose actions have made these assassinations necessary (if indeed they are necessary).

Secondly, up until the implosion of the Soviet Union, the world was largely divided into two armed camps in which the superpowers mostly fought wars by proxy, through allies and clients, with their own forces never coming into direct conflict with one another. Since the use by one superpower (or its allies/proxies) of nuclear weapons in such a conflict invited retaliation from the other superpower or its allies/proxies, nobody used them.

In the decades since them, the US has enjoyed unparalleled military supremacy, such that it seemed to be able to achieve its military goals without the use of nuclear weapons.

That appearance, however, is now evaporating. Many Americans are shocked at how much time, effort and dollars had to be expended in a war against a politically isolated third-rate power like Iraq, to achieve such a limited and unsatisfactory outcome, and at how an eight-year campaign against an even more insignificant power like Afghanistan has achieved ever less. The limitations of conventional military power are becoming obvious.

What’s also obvious, of course, is that nuclear weapons have no role to play in securing the US’s objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I can’t imagine them being used in such a conflict. But in a different kind of conflict, with faith in the power of the US’s conventional military capacity to achieve all that much so badly shaken, I think nuclear weapons would be very much on the agenda.

It's the killing of someone because of what they might do that I find shocking. Hitler was guilty of so much that killing him would have been understandable, however it's likely that the scientist assasinated in the recent attack was an honest man working for entirely peaceful ends.

Just imagine if we punished children for what they might do, or we were issued penalties from the police because we might rob or commit an assault.

I agree with you, to a certain extent. This scientist might have been innocent, but I can easily imagine a situation in which this is not the case.

On a similar note, we incarcerate people in prison who have committed a crime, where there circumstances might make it pretty clear they are not going to commit another crime (because of, say, the specific circumstances of the crime, including the personalities they interacted with, and so forth). Should these people be released if they are no longer a danger to society, or should they continue their full term in prison?

Mcfate,
I agree people shouldn't remain incarcerated when they are innocent, and that's one of the reasons many people object to the death penalty. There's no going back then is there?
It might be timely to remember that offenders are not imprisoned because they might commit the crime again. Imprisonment is a penalty for pleading or being found guilty of a crime.
It's the public that cries out for longer sentencing to keep criminals off the streets.

And I disagree with this idea. But that conversation properly belongs in the "Prison terms defined by outrage" thread, or something that doesn't take us too far away from your initial article.

Peregrinus: "I'm afraid it's a bit worse than that, Patrickt. The US is the only government actually to have deployed nuclear weapons in combat, against an enemy which did not possess nuclear weapons, against an undefended target in which it was a moral certainty that the overwhelming bulk of victims would be civilian noncombatants, to prosecute a war in which eventual victory for the US was already certain."

I love the rewriting of history. The "victory" was not certain. Ending the war without Japan "winning" was, I believe certain but the U.S. was tired of the war. The war in Europe had ended and they had no patience for slogging along in the Pacific and the Japanese knew it. As with the Germans, and the Battle of the Bulge, the hope of winning the war wasn't rational but the hope of ending the war with a promise to return was certainly there.

You have a weapon that, if it works, will in all likelyhood end the war, now. You choose not to use it. I suppose you would be comfortable that the loss of life in invading Japan was justified by the Japanese lives saved in not using the bomb. In my opinion, most people leading a nation in war wouldn't.

It is my opinion that had Hitler been assassinated before D-Day the Germans would have won the war in Europe.

I'm going to guess that there are states that would refuse to go nuclear - ones that have the capacity already but do not make the weapons. Is this solely because they are scared of other states? What I mean to say is, Is your assessment based upon the USA and its policies only? Would Switzerland take the same set of policies? And I'm curious about the UK - they have nukes, but do they set the same set of policies about them (noncombatants especially)? Do they already? These three countries are not in the same position of power in the world, but it is partly their policies that have made this so.

And I can imagine that governments of the future will not necessarily be the same as governments of today, which means that a variety of governmental policies are viable, and at some point today has got to start turning into tomorrow.

I can imagine a government that, while not "fibbing", has a public deterrent and a private preference.

Are you referring to the US pilots who dropped the "Shock and Awe" on the totally blameless people of Iraq?