On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 11:48:33AM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
> > > Chronicle of Higher Education - web daily - September 23, 2002
> >>
> >> In February, for example, 60 scholars issued a statement arguing that
> >> military action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda qualified as just war.
> >
> >Just out of curiousity, have the Walzer 60 piped up with anything specific
> >about Iraq?
> >
> >Also, now that I think about it -- Walzer's overriding criteria for
> >distinguishing just from unjust war is that intentionally killing
> >civilians is wrong, even for the purpose of deterring aggressors. He is
> >not deterred by unintentional collateral damage because if you rule that
> >out, you rule out war, and then you're a pacifist and not a just war
> >theorist. But how, I wonder, does he justify sanctions of mass
> >destruction? Because those are effectively targeted only at civilians,
> >and precisely with the aim of harming aggressors through their suffering.
> >
> >Michael
>
> Walzer has a real problem with nuclear deterrence, but I think the
> problem is inherent in the strategy and the weapons systems--not a
> flaw in his philosophy.
>
> The U.S. nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much terrorist
> acts as anything else. I think they were justified terrorist
> acts--they succeeded in bringing an end to the Japanese militarist
> government, and did so with a much lower butcher's bill than any
> conceivable invasion of Honshu. But that doesn't change their
> character...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu