5 ms·

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

e12e 11y ago
Superior nuclear capability? (And no, I don't think this sets a great precedent. Then again, it's not really something new to perform war crimes against "3rd world nations" -- but it does seem horribly out of place in our (thankfully) more educated times (as in, all of us are far more educated now, than previously)). The worst part, is that with all three big players lobbying warheads around in Syria, we might be closer to a third world war than we've ever been before.
DominikR 11y ago
One legitimate scenario is the US support for Jihadist organizations that operate all around the globe including in China. (Uyghur region) I think it is pretty clear who has the moral high ground on this one. For me this aspect of US foreign policy is by far the most disgusting, even more than the assassinations. You can see for yourself how the US demands from Russia to stop their military campaign in Syria now that the Jihadi groups are losing ground.
pjc50 11y ago
Well, this is basically what's now happening in Syria; the Russians are carrying out strikes on US-backed anti-Assad fighters using (among other things) cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Um, nations have been using military force of whatever kind they have available -- and doing so in whatever ways minimize what they have at risk for what they stand to achieve -- for a very long time, longer than the US has been around. Its not like Russia or China would refrain from using drones, where available, just because the US hadn't done it first. > Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases? The moral high ground is highly subjective, and generally perceived as being strongly linked to the validity of the justification. Not that the moral high ground matters all that much in practice if the outrage level isn't tied to groups with both the capacity and the will to do something about it which influences the national interest calculation.

e12e 11y ago

Superior nuclear capability? (And no, I don't think this sets a great precedent. Then again, it's not really something new to perform war crimes against "3rd world nations" -- but it does seem horribly out of place in our (thankfully) more educated times (as in, all of us are far more educated now, than previously)). The worst part, is that with all three big players lobbying warheads around in Syria, we might be closer to a third world war than we've ever been before.

DominikR 11y ago

One legitimate scenario is the US support for Jihadist organizations that operate all around the globe including in China. (Uyghur region) I think it is pretty clear who has the moral high ground on this one. For me this aspect of US foreign policy is by far the most disgusting, even more than the assassinations. You can see for yourself how the US demands from Russia to stop their military campaign in Syria now that the Jihadi groups are losing ground.

pjc50 11y ago

Well, this is basically what's now happening in Syria; the Russians are carrying out strikes on US-backed anti-Assad fighters using (among other things) cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Um, nations have been using military force of whatever kind they have available -- and doing so in whatever ways minimize what they have at risk for what they stand to achieve -- for a very long time, longer than the US has been around. Its not like Russia or China would refrain from using drones, where available, just because the US hadn't done it first. > Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases? The moral high ground is highly subjective, and generally perceived as being strongly linked to the validity of the justification. Not that the moral high ground matters all that much in practice if the outrage level isn't tied to groups with both the capacity and the will to do something about it which influences the national interest calculation.