Without attempting to descend into a philisophical discussion in a comment...I would like to ask about the point of this article. It seems to be a bit of news and a bit of commentary.
The news is perhaps interesting and relevant. The commentary I don't understand. There is a wealth of philosophical opinion on war and nuclear weapons, and this seems merely a listing of some 'authorities' of a certain perspective (who were themselves attempting an argument based on reason, not authority).
It seems also to gloss over what is, to me, a significant point - that the type of a weapon and the use of a weapon are not the same thing. I think the best arguments for nuclear armament rest on this: that nuclear armament is not the same thing as using the nukes against innocent civilians.
Without attempting to descend into a philisophical discussion in a comment...I would like to ask about the point of this article. It seems to be a bit of news and a bit of commentary.
The news is perhaps interesting and relevant. The commentary I don't understand. There is a wealth of philosophical opinion on war and nuclear weapons, and this seems merely a listing of some 'authorities' of a certain perspective (who were themselves attempting an argument based on reason, not authority).
It seems also to gloss over what is, to me, a significant point - that the type of a weapon and the use of a weapon are not the same thing. I think the best arguments for nuclear armament rest on this: that nuclear armament is not the same thing as using the nukes against innocent civilians.