Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Disobey Orders To Nuke Iran

Foreword: I realized while typing this up that this was becoming complex, and concluded that it is in large part my fault. I have helped us fall into what is called an equivocation fallacy. I have made points on various issues, sometimes at least partly tangent to the main question, without adequate distinction. Mea Culpa.
I. Should the order be disobeyed?
A. Should it be disobeyed because it's against international law?
B. Should it be disobeyed because it's against national law?
C. Should it be disobeyed because it's immoral?
II. After the fact
A. What are the implications of disobedience?
B. What are the implications of obedience?

Big question. I'll try to bring it back to to the heart of the matter and keep it as relevant as possible.

So far I've made the point that the order should be disobeyed because it is against national law. In this case matters are simplified because in a democracy it can be argued that it is immoral to violate the Constitution on the grounds that 1. We place moral value on Democracy. 2. Our democratic constitution ensures the applicability of our national values to the government.

Along with that, I've made the point that international law can be far too arbitrary to serve as a justification for action on its own. To that I add the following:

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Would it have really been for the same reason?

Pragmatically speaking, yes. There is an ambiguity to the word reason. There was a moral reason in the motivating sense, it is the causative sense that matters most, and in the causative sense, the reason was that Germany was defeated by those who found their acts intollerable.

We must separate morality from law in this case because morality isn't the ultimate cause of anything that happened. Morality must be consistent, but treaties and international court judgements based thereupon cannot be consistent because they are contingent upon victory.

Germany still would have been wrong if they had won, but they would have gotten away with it, and our men would have paid for the bombing of Dresden and other such events.


International law against becomes an issue when we talk about the aftermath, but only to the extent that it can be imposed by force.

National law runs into the same problem in theory, however in a democracy if we run by the popularly supported laws there is a higher probability, though imperfect, that the side which acts lawfully will be able to muster sufficient force to prevail, particularly if the conflict does not reach the stage of violence.

I think that adequately covers all points now.
The order to launch should be disobeyed on national legal grounds, which should be considered a guide to the collective morality of America and hopefully a safeguard of the ability to prevail.

If the weapons are launched, we're screwed anyway and the power principle trumps all. If the order is disobeyed, national laws and democratic victory may save us.

More on international law, for the heck of it:

I think international law may be as futile as you say, all though I think that it may stem as much from the sheer differences in cultural values as it does from what you are saying. Or are we actually saying the same thing?

I think we are talking about related points of the same reality. My point is that international law has no authority on its own, but achieves authority either by the submission or defeat of the offending power. International law's only purpose is as a warning- it creates an understanding between cultures as to what is expected and what the consequences are, but it derives no authority from the fact that it is "law", nor from the assent of the involved parties because it is not democratically decided in the fashion that national laws are, nor is there an implied consent of the citizens such as that described in Plato's "Dialogue of Critias" (Socrates argues that he is obviously bound to the national laws because he could have left the country if he disapproved, therefore he must submit to the death sentence passed on him).

Ahh, great point and key point. Now please explain to me how it is that the torture that has occured recently at the hands of our military can stand on any legal or moral grounds

It doesn't. This is the equivalent of the JCS obeying the unlawful order to launch the weapon. Strength trumps all in this case. The importance of national and moral standing was at the beginning, when the military should have disobeyed the unlawful order to do these things. This shows the imperfection of the principle that acting lawfully creates a greater potential for victory. I note however that if the Joint Chiefs had drawn the line on torture right when we started this war and Bush had canned them for it, he probably would have been voted out and thus democracy would have prevailed.

Still, that doesn't mean that it should be right in our minds to do the same to them.

I agree with everything you said there (except for the part about them breeding us out- fundementalism is not genetic and I believe that our values would endure with their population if they replaced us, unless we vanished almost entirely without ever engaging them).

You are quite welcome, and may Prince offer you a ride in his little red corvette.

I don't like Prince, Red Cars, or Corvettes. I'm a Chevelle fan, particularly 65-67, although I would jump on a Hemi Cuda, GTO Judge, or COPO Camaro.

Careful with the polishing cloth though, he doesn't take well to scratches. I just wish some of these guys would be a little more ingratiating when an intellectual powerhouse like you enters their thread. They don't realize how lucky they are that you even give them the time of day.

lol, only I'm supposed to be saying things like that man, and I'm supposed to pretend I'm kidding when I say it. I'm turning redder than that applause bar as I read.
You've given me some great challenges by the way, and I certainly hope you get a little closer to your next shade of red for your contributions here- you're earning it.

*Yeah everyone, I know, it's a Kodak moment- just don't call it "mushy".

I thought the american constitution made all treaties america agreed to american law?

Or am I wrong?

Originally posted by devilwasp
I thought the american constitution made all treaties america agreed to american law?

Or am I wrong?

Not technically. When Carter became the first president to unilaterally terminate a treaty with a foreign nation without recieving the consent of either the senate or house (some presidents had terminated treaties and recieved consent afterwards, and some had terminated them with only the senate) the principle was finally tested in the SCOTUS.

No decision could be reached so the court merely ordered the lower court to dismiss the case.

We can however conclude that since laws in the US CAN'T be rescinded by the president alone, or the president and senate alone, and this has been allowed with treaties multiple times, that treaties are not considered domestic law.

There are strong moral and practical arguments for adherence to treaties under certain circumstances, basically taking the shape of "don't unnecessarily disturb a peaceful status quo", however there is little case that a nation should adhere to treaties to its own extreme detriment, as this represents a shift away from the circumstances which made the treaty reasonable to enter (if the treaty was entered freely) and transforms the treaty from a mutually beneficial understanding into a mere letter warning of consequences.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't like Prince, Red Cars, or Corvettes. I'm a Chevelle fan, particularly 65-67, although I would jump on a Hemi Cuda, GTO Judge, or COPO Camaro.

Please don't let your intellect obscure the sheer simplicity of the relation of my statement to the color of your bar....That's all it was meant to do.

lol, only I'm supposed to be saying things like that man, and I'm supposed to pretend I'm kidding when I say it. I'm turning redder than that applause bar as I read.

lol, well I have no problem in patting a deserving member on the back once in a while, and sometimes I just get in the mood to do it when I see clearly brilliant posts going unnoticed and unacknowledged. You happened to catch me at a good time.

You've given me some great challenges by the way, and I certainly hope you get a little closer to your next shade of red for your contributions here- you're earning it.

Just the fact that you'd state that is a very big compliment to me. If by some stroke of incredible luck a mod happens to notice, then great. I have a feeling though that at the moment, applauses are not working, but I could be wrong. I also wanted to point out that you are so insightful, that you even realized the extent to which you had complicated the principles you were discussing, the grey areas that resulted, and even cleared that up! Incredible! You are truely one of my most admired members, and it's people like you that keep me transfixed with ATS.

*Yeah everyone, I know, it's a Kodak moment- just don't call it "mushy".

Even the most extreme intellect can be smitten by the most simple of feelings. No mush, just calling it the way I see it. To any person that says I am sucking up and kissing ass, so be it. I give credit where credit is due, regardless of what you think. Excellent exchange, Vagabond, thank you very much. This has certainly given me more ways to comprehend the dynamics involved with international law, and the different tangents on which they can be interpreted.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Please don't let your intellect obscure the sheer simplicity of the relation of my statement to the color of your bar....That's all it was meant to do.

When cars come up intellect shuts down and imagination and greed take over.

I have a feeling though that at the moment, applauses are not working, but I could be wrong.

Funny you say that. I didn't want to say anything because I'm not arrogant enough to just assume I have anything coming, but I'm well under my monthly average despite a recent burst of researched participation, and I was starting to wonder if I'd rubbed a few people the wrong way somehow.

Anyway, I suppose we ought to take a bow and let the thread progress (or, god forbid, fizzle if nobody else has an idea to add).

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I agree with everything you said there (except for the part about them breeding us out- fundementalism is not genetic and I believe that our values would endure with their population if they replaced us, unless we vanished almost entirely without ever engaging them).

I just realized what you meant here, and that statement I made about them breeding us out can be substantiated through information I just heard on a prominent radio show. To start discussing that however would really be off topic. Might make for an interesting new thread though...