On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Brad DeLong wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Actually I said *sanctions* of mass destruction. I was thinking of our 12 year campaign against Iraq, which, under conservative UN assumptions, has already killed several times as many people as Hiroshima. It's sanctions like these that seem indefensible under Walzer's theory.
BTW, I didn't coin the phrase. It's the title of an article by John and Karl Mueller in the May/June 1999 Foreign Affairs, where they argue that if one totes up the numbers under consistent conservative assumptions, economic sanctions have killed more people in the 20th century than all weapons of mass destruction combined. Yet with very little moral discomfort.
Also BTW, this is the article where they coined the phrase that if there was an identifiable Clinton doctrine, it was "to kill the innocent in order to express our indignation at the guilty." But arguably that can be said of most sanctions and all strategic bombing.
Lastly BTW, FWIW, IMHO, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strategic bombing and have no bearing on the theory of same because they didn't work through the people and productive plant on the war machine. They worked directly and instantly on the calculations of the leadership. In that sense they were an instance of completely different phenomenon: the unveiling of an surprise ultimate weapon against which there was no defense.
Michael