24 ms·

Both statements are hyperbolic, but the original is tongue-in-cheek and is saying that these moral judgments, themselves, are not logical. It also makes an elit

by chipsy 11y ago

Both statements are hyperbolic, but the original is tongue-in-cheek and is saying that these moral judgments, themselves, are not logical. It also makes an elitist gut punch at the American mindset, too, but I'll forgive it. If either statement were meant to be logical, it would have to be judged by applying some rationalistic framework like a utilitarian ethics, and summing up every potential achievement or atrocity into a total, so that one party might be declared more responsible with their nukes. (We don't do this, so when such a dilemma is presented, it's entirely for a rhetorical purpose - either to sway an unthinking audience, or to demonstrate a fallacy in action.)

ClintEhrlich 11y ago
Respectfully, I'm not sure what was hyperbolic about my statement. I meant it quite literally: The United States was taking a hypocritical position during the crisis. This doesn't bother me in some moral sense, because I'm fine with states pursuing their own self interest. But the issue is still important to point out, because it punctures the mythology of noble American statesmen carefully managing a crisis instigated by the Russians. Even though morality is subjective, in game theory reciprocity is a logical Schelling point. This isn't just post-hoc criticism of American policy; the Russians were actively pointing out this contradiction to the United States. Kruschev accused Kennedy of sinning against the very laws of logic. And he was right — which is why the U.S. ultimately agreed to the Soviet's proposed tit-for-tat withdrawal of mid-range nuclear missiles.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  The type of missiles, in particular, I think were inexcusable to place near the USSR. If they were deterrence weapons, alright that's one thing, but these were as the article highlights, vulnerable, exposed missiles, that would serve no purpose in deterrence as they can be easily taken out. As such their only strategic purpose is as a first-use weapon, putting something like that on your neighbour's doorstep is extremely hostile.

by chipsy 11y ago

ClintEhrlich 11y ago

Respectfully, I'm not sure what was hyperbolic about my statement. I meant it quite literally: The United States was taking a hypocritical position during the crisis. This doesn't bother me in some moral sense, because I'm fine with states pursuing their own self interest. But the issue is still important to point out, because it punctures the mythology of noble American statesmen carefully managing a crisis instigated by the Russians. Even though morality is subjective, in game theory reciprocity is a logical Schelling point. This isn't just post-hoc criticism of American policy; the Russians were actively pointing out this contradiction to the United States. Kruschev accused Kennedy of sinning against the very laws of logic. And he was right — which is why the U.S. ultimately agreed to the Soviet's proposed tit-for-tat withdrawal of mid-range nuclear missiles.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
The type of missiles, in particular, I think were inexcusable to place near the USSR. If they were deterrence weapons, alright that's one thing, but these were as the article highlights, vulnerable, exposed missiles, that would serve no purpose in deterrence as they can be easily taken out. As such their only strategic purpose is as a first-use weapon, putting something like that on your neighbour's doorstep is extremely hostile.