3 ms·

So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too? I'm not sure how the bad behavior of oth

So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too? I'm not sure how the bad behavior of others makes this behavior any less bad. I'm sure China destroying that satellite was widely criticized at the time too, but at some point we need to be able to sit back and say "Well, that's just not acceptable", regardless of who's still doing it or who's done it before. People commit murder everyday, that still doesn't make it okay.

portpecos 8y ago
Oh right, so the US sets the precedence for a military industrial complex, China continues it, and now the onus is on India to stop the precedence? You sell F-16’s to Terrorist Sponsoring Nations, FFS. Your previous administration sold $115 Billion worth of arms to a Terrorist Sponsoring Nation, FFS. https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKC...
r3bl 8y ago
China faced no consequences, US faced no consequences a year after the Chinese one, and I doubt India will face any consequences now. It's absolutely not okay and no country should do it. Saying "you shouldn't" to everyone else isn't gonna be effective at all when the precedent is set. Singing a treaty (like the nuclear treaties we've signed) might.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Unfortunately, there’s a clear difference between nation states and us that I don’t feel it’s productive to say, “Well, there’s no treaty, so obviously you and me are okay with it”. My country does plenty of things that are questionable or immoral. I’m still not okay with it. Do the politicians care? Nope. But their doing it despite my objections doesn’t make it any less immoral.
  - r3bl 8y ago
    Having a working anti-satellite program is nothing but a benefit to a country, with the possibility to negatively impact anyone else who has stuff in orbit. There are a very few problems that are comparable. The only ones that I could think of is climate change and nuclear program, because it's theoretically possible to harm humanity as a whole while doing no harm to locals. Nobody gets killed, there are no consequences that they could even theoretically face, the possible dangers are someone else's, and you publicly display a defense mechanism that only the strongest nations posses. From the government's perspective, this is nearly perfect. They'll be talked to sternly by some people, so what? That's where treaties can help, because other nations could point to it and say "we've agreed we won't do this because it harms humanity as a whole". We've "solved" the nuclear crisis by signing treaties, and we can solve this one the same way. We have an international organization that can walk into any space in any country (that signed the treaty) under any suspicion that they might be making a nuclear bomb. Destruction of satellites, in comparison, is much more obvious and easy to spot.
godelmachine 8y ago
Would you kindly elaborate on how it’s justifiable to equate murder with a nations deterrance?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d suggest that your ethics aren’t ethics and more like an opportunistic world view devoid of such.
  - portpecos 8y ago
    Dear Ethical USA, You are the largest exporter of arms in the world, in fact, you sold more than half a trillion dollars worth of arms since the 1950s. Your previous Progressive Presidency sold $115 Billion alone to Saudi Barbaria. https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKC... Maybe it’s in your ethical interest to clean your own house first. You started the Military Industrial Complex, you maintained the Military Industrial Complex, and you will continue propping up the Military Industrial Complex, now eat it.
  - godelmachine 8y ago
    I beg to differ with you. It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries. When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent. India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race. Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Ethics is relative. What is your definition of ethics?
Mirioron 8y ago
>So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too? Yes, pretty much. If a country doesn't want other countries to do a certain action then they themselves shouldn't do it either. You can't expect to be able to benefit from something and then deny other countries the same, unless you want to be a tyrant.

portpecos 8y ago

Oh right, so the US sets the precedence for a military industrial complex, China continues it, and now the onus is on India to stop the precedence? You sell F-16’s to Terrorist Sponsoring Nations, FFS. Your previous administration sold $115 Billion worth of arms to a Terrorist Sponsoring Nation, FFS. https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKC...

r3bl 8y ago

China faced no consequences, US faced no consequences a year after the Chinese one, and I doubt India will face any consequences now. It's absolutely not okay and no country should do it. Saying "you shouldn't" to everyone else isn't gonna be effective at all when the precedent is set. Singing a treaty (like the nuclear treaties we've signed) might.

jplayer01 8y ago
Unfortunately, there’s a clear difference between nation states and us that I don’t feel it’s productive to say, “Well, there’s no treaty, so obviously you and me are okay with it”. My country does plenty of things that are questionable or immoral. I’m still not okay with it. Do the politicians care? Nope. But their doing it despite my objections doesn’t make it any less immoral.
- r3bl 8y ago
  Having a working anti-satellite program is nothing but a benefit to a country, with the possibility to negatively impact anyone else who has stuff in orbit. There are a very few problems that are comparable. The only ones that I could think of is climate change and nuclear program, because it's theoretically possible to harm humanity as a whole while doing no harm to locals. Nobody gets killed, there are no consequences that they could even theoretically face, the possible dangers are someone else's, and you publicly display a defense mechanism that only the strongest nations posses. From the government's perspective, this is nearly perfect. They'll be talked to sternly by some people, so what? That's where treaties can help, because other nations could point to it and say "we've agreed we won't do this because it harms humanity as a whole". We've "solved" the nuclear crisis by signing treaties, and we can solve this one the same way. We have an international organization that can walk into any space in any country (that signed the treaty) under any suspicion that they might be making a nuclear bomb. Destruction of satellites, in comparison, is much more obvious and easy to spot.

godelmachine 8y ago

Would you kindly elaborate on how it’s justifiable to equate murder with a nations deterrance?

jplayer01 8y ago
It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d suggest that your ethics aren’t ethics and more like an opportunistic world view devoid of such.
- portpecos 8y ago
  Dear Ethical USA, You are the largest exporter of arms in the world, in fact, you sold more than half a trillion dollars worth of arms since the 1950s. Your previous Progressive Presidency sold $115 Billion alone to Saudi Barbaria. https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKC... Maybe it’s in your ethical interest to clean your own house first. You started the Military Industrial Complex, you maintained the Military Industrial Complex, and you will continue propping up the Military Industrial Complex, now eat it.
- godelmachine 8y ago
  I beg to differ with you. It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries. When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent. India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race. Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
- matz1 8y ago
  Ethics is relative. What is your definition of ethics?

Mirioron 8y ago

>So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too? Yes, pretty much. If a country doesn't want other countries to do a certain action then they themselves shouldn't do it either. You can't expect to be able to benefit from something and then deny other countries the same, unless you want to be a tyrant.