(no subject)

[Brad DeLong]

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>  > Brad DeLong wrote:
>>  >
>>  > >The line between explanation, understanding, justification, and
>>  > >excuse is always a fine one But anyone who wants to minimize the
>>  > >chances that the Gates of Hell are about to yawn open would be
>>  > >well-advised to talk less about how the WTC is "understandable given
>>  > >past misdeeds of the American government" and more about how massive
>>  > >civilian casualties--anywhere, anyhow, anytime--are unacceptable.
>>  >
>>  > Does that apply to Iraq and the former Yugoslavia too?
>>  >
>>  > Doug
>>
>>  Or Afghanistan in the all too near future?
>>
>>  Miles
>
>Civilian casualties are absolutely justified if they somehow prevent the
>future slaughters of a greater number of persons.  Somehow, I don't see
>how the attack on the WTC is going to prevent any deaths.
>
>-- Luke

Ah. Now we're getting into "Their Morals and Ours" territory... Is it 
more immoral for the United States to issue an ultimatum to 
Afghanistan (if it is indeed Osama bin Laden's group that is 
responsible) and to follow through (if bin Laden and company are not 
delivered) with massive retaliation (and thus to kill innocent 
civilians by the office-tower-load)? Or is it more immoral not to 
take actions that kill yet more innocent civilians by the 
office-tower-load, and thus to teach every fanatic for the next 
century that large-scale terrorism is a really effective way of 
getting the world's attention, and has little downside, and so set 
the table for even more massive civilian casualties in the more 
distant future?

I don't know the answer. One reason I do economics and not political 
science is that even thinking about such questions leaves me 
profoundly depressed...

Brad DeLong