Thankfully you've provided an example further down the thread, so my comparatively weak intellect doesn't need to do very much inference:
>As an example, it is within the realm of possibility that Israel or the United States use nukes on Iran, and there would be pretty strong logical/rational justifications for doing so.
Iran has promoted hostile rhetoric against Israel since the latter's inception as a state (with a brief thawing of relations during the Shah's time in power). You could reasonably say that its anti-Israeli stance is one of the two fundamental foreign policy positions of Iran, alongside containing the expansion of Saudi influence in the region.
Despite this (and despite having nearly 10x the population), Iran's ability to project power anywhere beyond its immediate borders has been limited to funding Islamic fundamentalist proxy groups. They have no functional nuclear weapons, and no capability to target Israel with a conventional land or sea attack. A real threat to Israel's sovereignty is neither credible nor imminent enough to warrant an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike (assuming such a justification can exist, as you're suggesting).
It's undeniable that the Soviet Union perceived the US to be an existential threat to its sovereignty. For some reason though, I find it unlikely that you would describe a preemptive Soviet nuclear strike on the US as "rational and reasonable" from their perspective, despite fulfilling many of the same criteria as your example: a hostile power outside of reach of a conventional attack, whose foreign policy is molded around precipitating your failure as a state (with the added qualification that such a power could actually deliver on this goal in a tangible way).
With an "imagination" like that, we can do nothing more than hope you're far from the reins of power.
The Cold War isn't applicable because both sides had the capacity to destroy the other - look up mutually assured destruction if you need to.
That's completely different from a case of, say, Israel preemptively nuking Iran to protect itself - permanently - from an Iran that is both actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons for itself and has on many occasions made clear that it will use them to wipe Israel off the face of the earth once it gets them.
Those are not at all similar situations, if it isn't obvious.
You guys can try to play dumb mind games with this but it turns out there aren't any true blanket statements about morality and what's evil and that ultimately the rational and realistic choices (viz., those made in self-defence) are apt to offend many of you funny people.
You are saying there are rational reasons for taking actions that would have killed a significant proportion of the world; reasons which in hindsight were wrong and unnecessary. Sounds evil to me.
Go read the comment I was replying to a few times until you understand it. Nothing I said refers to hindsight bias. I'm saying there are absolutely situations in which a nuclear first strike would be rational, reasonable, and make complete logical and moral sense for the country undertaking the first strike.
As an example, it is within the realm of possibility that Israel or the United States use nukes on Iran, and there would be pretty strong logical/rational justifications for doing so.
You can identify with a side without being one of them. I am neither, nor from the ME. There is no reasonable justification to use weapons that can kill so many so indiscriminately. By anyone. So yes, advocating for their use may be characterised by some as evil.
In your opinion. But making blanket statements to the effect that every preemptive use of nukes is evil is smallminded and laughable.
It's pretty simple: If State A peddles a religion that promotes the extermination of all non-believers of said religion, and if State A itself claims that State B has no right to exist and ought to be wiped off the face of the earth (and indeed that State B will do what it can to make sure that State A is wiped off the face of the earth) out of principle, then State B has every logical and reasonable right to take action against State A before State A can destroy State B. It's really quite simple. Mankind isn't one big brotherhood, and modern global civilisation is in many respects a zero sum affair. It is absolutely rational for stronger powers to eliminate weaker powers whose stated goals are to eventually destroy those stronger powers. It's really just a form of self-defence. The notion of 'innocent people dying' is something you've made up in your head as relevant when that just isn't part of contemplating an existential threat.
Obviously people like you might find that offensive, but that doesn't affect the calculus lol.
>As an example, it is within the realm of possibility that Israel or the United States use nukes on Iran, and there would be pretty strong logical/rational justifications for doing so.
Iran has promoted hostile rhetoric against Israel since the latter's inception as a state (with a brief thawing of relations during the Shah's time in power). You could reasonably say that its anti-Israeli stance is one of the two fundamental foreign policy positions of Iran, alongside containing the expansion of Saudi influence in the region.
Despite this (and despite having nearly 10x the population), Iran's ability to project power anywhere beyond its immediate borders has been limited to funding Islamic fundamentalist proxy groups. They have no functional nuclear weapons, and no capability to target Israel with a conventional land or sea attack. A real threat to Israel's sovereignty is neither credible nor imminent enough to warrant an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike (assuming such a justification can exist, as you're suggesting).
It's undeniable that the Soviet Union perceived the US to be an existential threat to its sovereignty. For some reason though, I find it unlikely that you would describe a preemptive Soviet nuclear strike on the US as "rational and reasonable" from their perspective, despite fulfilling many of the same criteria as your example: a hostile power outside of reach of a conventional attack, whose foreign policy is molded around precipitating your failure as a state (with the added qualification that such a power could actually deliver on this goal in a tangible way).
With an "imagination" like that, we can do nothing more than hope you're far from the reins of power.