Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Speaking of WWIII...

...this is insane, and Putin is correct that if NATO members supply weapons to a country (even a country like Urkaine that is a victim of Russian aggression) which they know that country will use to attack Russia, then NATO is attacking Russia, ergo....

I hope that Putin will not respond by starting nuclear Armageddon, but I would not be surprised if he starts using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine as a warning.  He has an additional motive, which is to tip the U.S. election in favor of Trump.

The risk of accidental nuclear war, redux

This makes for chilling reading.   Did you know that the U.S. could not retaliate against a nuclear strike from North Korea without sending its land-based missiles over Russian territory, and Russia's missile detection technology is inferior to ours, so they are less reliable at tracking the course of a nuclear missile, and thus more likely to think they are being attacked.  Some President better get a handle on this situation, and Congress really needs to reign in control of use of nuclear weapons, before every other issue is moot.  And the situation will get worse as the technology "improves," and nuclear warheads are attached to hypersonic missiles, so that instead of six minutes to figure out what is happening, leaders will have 2 minutes or less.  This does not end well.

UPDATE:  Philosopher David Wallace writes:

[W]hile I thought there was a lot of interesting content in Jacobsen’s book, and while it’s right to remind people that the stresses on the President could lead to catastrophe, I found the way her scenario played out to be really implausible. The reason for launch-on-warning is that the Russians might launch an attack large enough to destroy the US’s land-based missiles before they’re fired, so you need to fire them immediately. (FWIW I think that argument ceased to be plausible once we developed accurate submarine-launched missiles, and getting rid of launch-on-warning would be a very good idea.) But there is zero possibility that NK could destroy US missile siloes like that, since its arsenal isn’t nearly large enough (and in Jacobsen’s scenario it’s obvious they’re not trying to). I don’t see why the US wouldn’t respond to a small-scale NK attack by prioritizing getting the president out of DC and then considering a response at relative leisure (including taking the time to talk to the Russians and Chinese).  (Disclaimer: I don’t have genuine professional expertise in this, though I’ve had a lay interest for many years.)

Trump, a lifelong de facto criminal, now a de jure one

Thank goodness the New York prosecutors knew what they were doing, and secured a conviction against the monster child, now making him officially a convicted felon.   A quick jury verdict is almost always a finding of guilty, and this case was no different.  The monster child will appeal, and who knows, the conviction might be overturned on appeal.  But that process will take many months, and so the stain of being a convicted criminal may affect the 'independent' voters (those who cannot tell the difference between night and day) come November.

The outcome is gratifying, of course, especially since an acquittal would have been a huge boost for the monster child.  The irony is that this case was not nearly as significant or as strong as two other cases:  the election interference case in Georgia and the federal prosecution for making off with classified materials.  The latter has been derailed by the Trump-appointed hack judge Aileen Cannon, who is a unique embarrassment to the federal judiciary; the former has been derailed by the hack state prosecutor in Georgia, Fani Willis, whose world-historic bad judgment in appointing her unqualified boyfriend as one of the prosecutors now seems to guarantee that this case will not get to trial before the election.   (The third case, the federal prosecution for election interference, has been delayed by the super-legisature, i.e., the Supreme Court, but that case strikes me as far less sturdy than the Georgia and classificed documents cases.)  So everyone owes thanks to the New York prosecutors for moving with dispatch and success to secure a conviction.  (Trump is very unlikely to get a jail sentence, but that won't change the fact that he is a convicted felon.)

The Israel/Gaza catastrophe--(plus the question of 'academic boycotts')

The NYT, which used to be an almost shameless apologist for any US-funded Israeli crimes, has turned a corner, it appears:  this article about the rise of the religious crazies in Israel (in the immortal words of the Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan, "Fundamentalism is the mortal enemy of civilized humanity") and then this opinion piece revealing what is increasingly obvious to the whole world:

America’s romantic mythology and wishful thinking about Israel encourage a tendency to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the main cause of the ruthlessness in Gaza, where Israel has killed more than 35,000 people. The unpopular, scandal-ridden premier makes a convincing ogre in an oversimplified story.

But Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, the creeping famine, the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods — this, polling suggests, is the war the Israeli public wanted. A January survey found that 94 percent of Jewish Israelis said the force being used against Gaza was appropriate or even insufficient. In February, a poll found that most Jewish Israelis opposed food and medicine getting into Gaza. It was not Mr. Netanyahu alone but also his war cabinet members (including Benny Gantz, often invoked as the moderate alternative to Mr. Netanyahu) who unanimously rejected a Hamas deal to free Israeli hostages and, instead, began an assault on the city of Rafah, overflowing with displaced civilians.

(The failure of Israeli leadership to secure the freedom of Israeli hostages, or even to priotize their freedom, is really quite extraordinary.)

I recommend this talk by my colleague John Mearsheimer about what a disaster all this is for Israel.  John is from New York City, and he has a slightly disarming way of speaking about atrocities, but he is a realist:  his basic view is that morality has nothing to do with the behavior of states, which live in the proverbial Hobbesian state of nature (notwithstanding the recent arrest warrants for Netanyahu and various Hamas criminals--but no one will be arrested, unless Israel captures the Hamas criminals).  As John says, there are four options for Israel, given that they control land (the West Bank, Gaza) that includes over seven million Palestinians: a democratic state for everyone (the benign meaning of "from the river to the sea"); a two-state solution; the existing apartheid; or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.  As John says, quite correctly, the first two options are off the table as far as Israel is concerned (barring a political revolution there:  see the NYT article, above, about the rise of the religious zealots in Israel), so the media blather about a two-state solution is just pure propaganda:  no one with political power there wants it.  I seem to recall Steve Salaita saying on Twitter (I don't have the energy to track it down), that the real problem for Israel is that the Palestinians still exist.  And that means apartheid (which is tough to maintain), or ethnic cleansing--with the conduct of the war on Gaza suggests ethnic cleansing is the real goal by making Gaza uninhabitable and driving out the population. 

How Netanyahu's government is endangering Israel's survival

This rings true to me, alas; some excerpts:

War is a military means for achieving political aims, and there is one key yardstick by which to measure success in war: Were the political aims achieved? Following the horrendous massacre of October 7, Israel needed to liberate the hostages and disarm Hamas, but these should not have been its only aims. In light of the existential threat posed to Israel by Iran and its agents of chaos, Israel also needed to deepen its alliance with Western democracies, strengthen cooperation with moderate Arab forces, and work to establish a stable regional order. However, the Netanyahu government ignored all these aims, and instead focused on revenge. It has failed to secure the release of all the hostages, and has not disarmed Hamas. Worse, it intentionally inflicted a humanitarian disaster on the 2.3 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and thereby undermined the moral and geopolitical basis for Israel's existence....

After six months of war, many of the hostages are still in captivity and Hamas is still on its feet, but the Gaza Strip is devastated, many thousands of its people have been killed, and most of its population are now famished refugees. Together with Gaza, Israel's international standing is also in ruins, and we are now hated and ostracized even by many of our former friends....

Daily Mail gives a vivid description of what a nuclear attack on Washington DC would be like

They love sensationalism, of course, but this isn't sensational, this is a pretty realistic description of what would ensue.   We need more reporting like this, including on the cable and television news.

Nuclear armageddon

The NYT is to be commended for running this feature and this one.  The risk of a nuclear war, including an accidental one, is only going to increase as the speed with which interballistic missles travel increases, and the time for fateful decisions is cut shorter.  The only countervailing development may be improved detection, both in speed and reliability.  Barring that, I can't see how we are not going to see nuclear weapons used in the next couple of decades.  As the first NYT feature notes, we need to start "imagining" nuclear war more, not less.

Gaza and ethnic cleansing, redux

The truth about Israel's plan for Gaza is now coming out; see also.  At this point, all the evidence of the destruction wrought on Gaza seems consistent with this.

Roundup of Israel/Gaza links for October 22

The Bedouin bus driver who saved 30 young Israelis from the Hamas massacre at the "rave"

The "logic" behind the Israeli siege of Gaza and the looming disease threat to Gaza residents

The "war on water" in Gaza

Another round of Israel/Gaza links for October 19

A guide to the law of armed conflict, with some explicit references to Israel, Gaza, and Hamas.  This is highly informative, but as the authors note, whether particular actions constitute war crimes, or otherwise violations of the law of armed conflict (not all violations are war crimes), is a "fact-sensitive" inquiry (although there are some clear violations:  e.g., taking hostages).

"The War in Gaza:  What is Israel allowed to do?" by David Enoch & Barak Medina (the link is to the Google Translate version--thanks to William Conner for the pointer).  (UPDATE:  Here is the "official" English version.  [Thanks to Sergio Tenenbaum for the pointer.].)

A roundup of more commentary and news on the attack on Israel and the war in Gaza

The Twitter feed of an Israeli news source (in English) has a number of interesting items each day.  One thing I've seen there, but not elsewhere, is that Israel has already begun to assassinate Hamas leadership (here and here, for example).  I'm not an international law expert, but I believe this is a completely appropriate form of self-defense in light of the the crimes of October 7, and one that will do far less harm to innocent civilians (including the hostages in Gaza, who are at grave risk).  It would basically be a more aggressive form of what Israel did after the 1972 Munich massacre.

The families of the hostages are, understandably, very worried about the pending invasion of Gaza.  And the Biden Administration is very worried about the invasion triggering a wider conflagration, one in which the U.S. will intervene.  Why not prioritize saving the hostages and targetting the perpetrators of the crimes of October 7?  As one Israeli friend of mine remarked on Facebook:  "I fear that at this point israel is operating out of blind vengeance...without a clear plan. The result will be devastating not only to Gaza but also to Israel."

The Catholic Patriarch in Jerusalem offers to exchange himself for the hostages in Gaza.  Perhaps Netanhayu and the religious zealots in his cabinet should make the same offer?

A woman in Gaza recounts her family's decision to flee south. 

Another depraved U.S. academic outs himself.  He should have to sit down and explain himself to the volunteer grave diggers in Israel.

"Whither Palestine?"  A curious essay, but it does make some interesting observations about the strange idea of "settler colonialism."

 

More links and commentary regarding Israel and Gaza

Inside the Hamas attack on one Israeli kibbutz.

Violence against Palestinians surges in the West Bank.

A BBC journalist reporting from inside a Gaza hospital (from a couple of days ago, it's probably worse now).

Peter Beinart is one of the few prominent pro-Israel Jewish writers to actually recognize the Palestinians as human beings with legitimate interests and rights; he here draws an interesting contrast with the ANC's struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

"Hamas is dragging Israel towards the abyss."  I fear this is a correct assessment.  If the West Bank erupts, if Hezbollah attacks, if Iran joins the fight, either directly or through support of intermediaries, and hundreds of thousands of Israeli troops are in Gaza, this could become an existential crisis not just for the Palestinians but for Israel.  At that point, would Israel use nuclear weapons against Iran (or against Hezbollah)?  Would the U.S. intervene? And then what? 

UPDATE:  Interesting comment from longtime reader Dr. Roger Albin, which he kindly gave permission to share:

The Beinart essay is very good but like many discussions of the end of Apartheid in South Africa, overlooks what may be the most critical factor – the role of Cuba and the struggles in the former Portuguese colonies.  The Cuban-led expulsion of South African troops from Angola in the late 1980s ended the South African regime’s hope of maintaining a cordon sanitaire of client states around South Africa.  The South African leadership was intelligent enough to realize that the long-term survival of the regime was unlikely and that some form of negotiated settlement was the only way out.  To put it crudely, the Cuban Armed Forces forced the Apartheid regime to the bargaining table.  This is very well described in Piero Gleijeses’ two excellent books on this topic.  As Beinart points out, ANC success was partly due to its commitment to a pluralistic democracy and disciplined violence, but these would have been unavailing without Castro’s commitment to defending anti-colonial movements in Africa and the fire power of the Cuban military.  

One million human beings can't evacuate anywhere in 24 hours...

...and certainly not in a country under siege and as devastated as Gaza is.  This is extremely ominous.  It also makes clear that in the rush for vengeance for the crimes of October 7, Israel is prepared to sacrifice the lives of all the Israeli hostages.   I have signed this letter regarding the October 7 atrocities (authored by the group that produced this earlier letter), and the authors invite signatures from anyone who supports the message.

Some more links and perspectives relating to Israel and Hamas

The NYT quotes the U.N. Secretary-General saying this (regarding the Hamas "pillage and murder" raids in Southern Israel):  “Nothing can justify these acts of terror and the killing, maiming and abduction of civilians.”  This seems like a rather good principle, even if it is unsatisfying to those who think, "No it is justified against an apartheid state" or "It is justified by the way Israel has treated the Palestinians" and so on.  The reason the principle should be treated as an absolute is obvious:  in the absence of such a norm, the scale of human misery during conflict and war will be far greater than it already is.   When Israel invades Gaza, there will be, correctly, demands that it observe that norm, even if the Hamas barbarians did not.  We saw what happened in WWII when that norm was rarely observed.  We need it to hold, and those who violate it deserve to become pariahs.

Regarding the invasion of Gaza, this opinion piece suggests, not implausibly, that this may have been exactly what Hamas wanted as part of its longterm strategy:

Hamas knew that the attack on Saturday would give Mr. Netanyahu little choice but to retaliate with a ground invasion, and it knows that Israel Defense Forces technology and military superiority will offer little advantage on the crowded streets of Gaza City, in Jabalia, Gaza’s largest refugee camp, or through Hamas’s labyrinth of underground tunnels...

It appears Hamas wants to draw Israeli soldiers into a quagmire, like Hezbollah did in Southern Lebanon from 1985 to 2000. After years of fighting, Israel suffered a humiliating and chaotic withdrawal, leaving an empowered and threatening Hezbollah on its northern border.

Why might Hamas want to draw the I.D.F. into a bloody ground battle? Hamas is the uncontested power in Gaza, though elections have not been held since 2006. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor its main political party, Fatah, the business community, civil society nor family clan leaders can effectively challenge Hamas, which has become only stronger after each successive conflict with Israel....Hamas surely believes it can defeat the Israelis on its home turf in a war of attrition.

Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine

MOVING TO Front from June 14

This analysis, unfortunately, seems very compelling.  Do not comment until you have read it in full.  If the author is wrong, I'd be very interested to hear why.

(Thanks to Boris Dagaev for the pointer.)

U.N. chief is worried too

A propos our recent thread, the head of the U.N. is worried too:

UN chief Antonio Guterres warned nations Monday that he fears the likelihood of further escalation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict means the world is heading towards a "wider war"....

 

Top of the list [of threats] was Russia's war in Ukraine, which is approaching its one-year anniversary.

 

"The prospects for peace keep diminishing. The chances of further escalation and bloodshed keep growing," he said.

 

"I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open."

The latest escalation of the war in Ukraine

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 31--A LIVELY, AND GENERALLY QUITE INTERESTING DISCUSSION IN THE COMMENTS, AS BEFORE

Provision of tanks to Ukraine in the West's proxy war against Russia is another dangerous escalation of the conflict.  We haven't discussed the Ukraine situation, and the risk of nuclear conflict, in awhile, and reader Brendan Moran suggested another discussion might be illuminating.  So what do readers make of these developments?  Do they bring us closer to nuclear conflict?  Will they "help" end the conflict or prolong it?

30 "progressive" Democrats call on Biden to seek a "negotiated settlement" with Russia (UPDATED)

Here.  Without U.S. and European military support, the war in Ukraine is over, which means a "negotiated settlement" is also going to include pressure in Ukraine to make concessions it will not want to make, although the letter doesn't mention that.  Hopefully this letter will give some impetus to Biden to take steps to avoid killing us all.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Joel Pust points out to me on Twitter that they're already backtracking!  Disappointing.

Sleepwalking into Armageddon, Part 2

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 17, SINCE THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMENTS CONTINUES--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

Reader Boris Dagaev calls my attention to this chilling interview at the Financial Times with Alexander Gabuev, who "before he left Russia...was a member of the country’s foreign policy elite as one of Russia’s leading experts on China," and now works for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC (previously in Moscow).  An excerpt:

I think that if [Putin] believes that he’s losing this war and this war is existential for his understanding of his role in Russian history, we will see real-time preparations [for the use of nuclear weapons]. So he will try not to hide this. And it’s gonna be nuclear warhead-driven direction missile or whatever or artillery shells being unloaded. He will make it visible to give the west time to call him and start negotiation and avoid the nuclear escalation scenario, the way Cuban missile crisis was resolved....

"We are on a path to nuclear war"

Reader Howard Berman calls this brief essay to my attention.  An excerpt:

What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make — in part because if I’m right, I’m unlikely to be around take credit for it....