Latest and Greatest Hypothetical -- (Threat of) Aggression Justifies War?

[Kludge]

Scenario: Country X nationalists in the US, encouraged and financially assisted by Country X, use explosives to destroy a US landmark, kill 1,000 US citizens, and cause billions in damage. Country X (which happens to be a small, technologically backwards, non-nuclear country on another continent) openly claims responsibility. There is obviously a threat that Country X (whose leader just went on international media calling the US an infidel nation that should adopt Country X's religion, government, and enemies) will continue supporting terrorism against the US until they cease their offensive policies.

Now, given the knowledge that declaring war would cause the deaths of 100,000 US soldiers, 150,000 Country X soldiers, and another 100,000 Country X civilians, but that the US will ultimately succeed in toppling Country X's gov't and instilling a new US-friendly republican gov't, should the US declare war on Country X?

If you're unsure of critical conditions, ask and I'll clarify.

[Vessol]

No, I'd increase funding of my own national defenses and intelligence agencies to protect against these future attacks.

Not a rating winner, but it'd be the more rational approach.

That or I'd just start a proxy war and fund a bunch of guerrilla's in Nation X or incite the neighbor of Nation X to march on them.

[axiomata]

How is the attack on the US described merely a "threat of" aggression? Why would it take 100,000 US soldier deaths to achieve military victory in the backwards country of X? What are these "offensive policies" the leaders of X claim the US is taking part in? Is it true?

[Imperial]

What is public opinion in country X toward the local regime?

[rp08orbust]

What is public opinion in country X toward the local regime?

What is a "public opinion"?

[Kludge]

(let Xreligion be known as the official religion of Country X)


How is the attack on the US described merely a "threat of" aggression?

Limit on how many words I can include in the title, so it's a bit unclear. Aggression took place and there is a continuing threat.


Why would it take 100,000 US soldier deaths to achieve military victory in the backwards country of X?

There is a strong resistance by citizens of Country X and enemy combatants are not easily identifiable.


What are these "offensive policies" the leaders of X claim the US is taking part in? Is it true?

The US is engaging in offensive anti-Xreligion policies, including the acceptance of sex and homosexuality in US culture, perceived anti-Xreligion teachings in public schools, wherein Country X believes the US is indoctrinating students to hate Country X and it's culture/religion. Country X blames its problems on the influence of the US in antagonizing Country X, causing international hatred (allegedly through disinfo) toward Country X and harming its citizens. Country X's leader has often gone on international media to object to the deaths of Country X's citizens due to "Western" tariffs and perceived purposeful exclusion from important diplomatic talks.

The US is obviously refuting these claims, but the public is unaware of who is telling the truth. It is accepted in the US that we are free and clear of blame while Country X citizens (as well as "fringe" sympathizers throughout the world) generally accept the US (and those they've influenced through their "Imperialist" foreign policy) is responsible for the hardships facing Country X.

[Kludge]

What is public opinion in country X toward the local regime?

A recent Xogby poll (The Official Pollsters of Country X) claim support for the local regime is at ~99.95%.

US officials claim that is closer to 70%. (This would be the number you'd know of)

In the Objective Reality I'm conjuring for you, the actual % of citizens supporting the local regime is 90%, though many are illiterate and have no source of news less government-controlled channels. It should also be noted that the vast majority of the 10% opposition support another equally-authoritarian regime.

[rp08orbust]

I voted "No". I would support the capture and trial of those responsible for the crimes, not a declaration of war by one state against another that would inevitably result in the death of innocent civilians.

[axiomata]

I voted "No". I would support the capture and trial of those responsible for the crimes, not a declaration of war by one state against another that would inevitably result in the death of innocent civilians.
Aren't those responsible the state itself? Or does the responsibility end with the 1000 in the US and not include their funding and direction from overseas?

So far I appear the only one to have voted yes that a declaration of war would be in order; I'd argue, necessary, to recognize our existing state of war with X.

[Golding]

How is it that nation X is a non-nuclear country, but is capable of gathering enough funds to provide a group of people with enough explosives to destroy a national landmark and kill 1000 people?

Just seems strange, because I question whether country X would render themselves defenseless against the very kind of people they're arming. Maybe I'm just playing too much into the hypothetical...

[Kludge]

How is it that nation X is a non-nuclear country, but is capable of gathering enough funds to provide a group of people with enough explosives to destroy a national landmark and kill 1000 people?

Just seems strange, because I question whether country X would render themselves defenseless against the very kind of people they're arming. Maybe I'm just playing too much into the hypothetical...

:D Now you're getting into the "Imperialist" foreign policy, which has threatened to cut off all trade with Country X if they proceed with any research or acquisitions which will likely move them toward becoming a nuclear power (or nuclear-powered). Country X has submitted to allowing weapons inspectors (among others) inside their country from multiple countries and the UN at random, as well, all of who confirmed Country X does not currently have (nor have capability to create) nuclear weapons.

[Bman]

I was raised to not throw the first hit, but if hit, to hit back twice as hard.

If you want to physically attack someone , because their ideas are beating your ideas, I would support/indifferent/allow them punching back twice as hard.

[Pete]

I would put out a contract on the leader of X and anyone else in their government who was behind the attack, punish those directly responsible, and round up other X nationals in the US in order to determine their sympathies, ejecting those who appear to be untrustworthy.

I would also cease trading with X, but invite peace negotiations with the new leadership and seek to resolve any differences in an open and honest fashion.

Question: If our culture is so repugnant to them, then why would they want to trade with us?

Any further acts of war would be met with a declaration on our part, most likely.

[Lavoro]

Solution: Carpet bombing.

[Kludge]

Question: If our culture is so repugnant to them, then why would they want to trade with us?

They (the rulers and favored) are heavily dependent on the trade goods of the "Western" world, though the vast majority of Country X's population relies on... unreliable subsistance farming just to get by. Country X claims that it would like the indigent to be able to survive and afford luxuries, but that high tariffs of the "West" prevent the government from exporting anything to make up the deficit. In my Objective Reality, this is not the case. However, this is what the gov't is claiming, and is all the citizens of Country X know.

It should also be noted that the "West" provides a meager amount of foreign aid (almost none of which goes where it ought) to Country X, for the sake of having additional influence, and are using that power to their advantage in threatening Country X.

[Kludge]

This bump only exists in theory.

[mediahasyou]

War is hell. Let's live in heaven.

[olehounddog]

War is hell. Let's live in heaven.

I'm with you

[powerofreason]

Governments cannot morally do anything. Aggression can be justified before any harm has been done though. A clear and present danger may be acted against preemptively.

Example: Person A takes gun out of pocket and aims at Person B. Person B quickly draws his weapon and shoots Person A first. No wrong has been done by Person B.

I find that the Murray Rothbards book The Ethics of Liberty is an invaluable source for learning about what is truly wrong for people to do to others and what is justified in terms of retribution and restitution. All arguments are based on logic and reason as opposed to emotion or superstition.

[Imperial]

Do massive intelligence operation in the country (as would already be going on). Begin propaganda campaign within the territory.

Do NOT create a covert or paramilitary force. Let your rhetoric be negative toward the nation. If a revolt begins, then consider a declaration of war and supplying the rebels.

BTW, I am assuming we have not interfered in the internal policies of Country X.

[MRoCkEd]

I would enact increasingly offensive policies every time they attack thereby turning all attacks into support for these policies. Either they stop, or they bring about more acceptance of homosexuality.

[powerofreason]

I might add that war is only made possible by the State. There has only been one case of a voluntarily funded war in history. War is far too expensive for a voluntary organization to undertake. Unless a very large number of people are asking for protection. Only a government would initiate a war, though.