[SUBMITTED 14/11/18] Hungry For War

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Obviously about the Yemen famine, seen from a British/American perspective which is bit parochial I know, but hey, British here.

Seems a little callous to be making an issue about current events, I know, but have two defences. First, I think highlighting the situation isn't morally irresponsible. Second, I know that my issues take about 2 years to trickle through on average, so it won't be so fresh at that time.

TITLE:

Hungry For War


VALIDITY:

Has an arms industry


DESCRIPTION:

In the beleaguered war-torn nation of North Brasilistan famine is causing massive numbers of deaths. International media reports and heart-rending pictures of starving children are causing a stir, and many international commentators are saying that @@NAME@@ is more responsible than most for this human tragedy...


OPTION ONE

"Simply, it is your nation's bombs that are being sold to the aggressor states, and those bombs that are creating this famine situation," accuses North Brasilistani refugee @@randomname@@, literally and figuratively pointing a finger at you. "If you care about starving children, you will suspend arms sales to these nations, and enact trade sanctions to force them to stop attacking civilian targets."

OUTCOME:

arms dealers only sell bombs to those who promise not to use them


OPTION TWO

@@randomname@@, the Director of @@DEMONYM@@ Aerospace steps inbetween you and the refugee, waving @@HIS@@ hands frantically. "Whoa, whoa, let's not be so ready to destroy jobs and economic growth in @@NAME@@: the people working in our factories have kids too. Do you want them to starve? If you want to protect children both domestically and overseas, then clearly the moral thing to do is to send oodles of government aid. You'll be needing some long distance planes to airdrop supplies in, right? Turns out we've got some last-generation bombers were due to be mothballed, we'll let you have them at cost."

Outcome:

alternating airdrops of aid packages and napalm send mixed messages


OPTION THREE

"This isn't going to please many, but there's a better solution here," proposes military statistician @@randomname@@. "The calculus of war suggests that the best way to minimise suffering over time is to bring war to an end, and the most effective way to end war quickly is with overwhelming application of military force. Join in the bombing with our own air force, and render North Brasilistan defenceless against its attackers. The new regime will be able to establish new infrastructure in peacetime, and the military support we lend now will put us in good stead for future trading relationships. Mathematically, it's the most compassionate option."

Outcome:

the @@DEMONYM@@ Air Force tells their targets that they're being bombed for their own good

[Anglomir]

Haha, good outcomes as usual. I don't think its too topical to be honest, but what will be will be.

[Trotterdam]

You talk about famine, but then most of the issue is about arms sales rather than the famine itself.

#562 already addresses arms sales misuse.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For sure, I edited 562 and had it in mind when I was writing this one.

However, this issue is about a famine occurring because of the nation's weapons, while that one is about whether we should only sell weapons to those who are ideologically compatible with our nation. Two different topics, both relating to the arms industry for sure, but I think involving the same industry doesn't make for an overlap.

[Trotterdam]

However, this issue is about a famine occurring because of the nation's weapons,

I still don't see how that follows.

I mean sure, murdering farmers would lead to a famine, but the main problem is the weapons being used on civilians, which per definition causes a bunch of deaths even before you factor in the famine. The actual famine seems barely relevant to the narrative here.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 4, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that

[Trotterdam]

Option 4, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that

This draft only has 3 options.

[Australian rePublic]

My mistake. Option 3

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Option 4, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that

I think I believe it, from a purely rational point of view. It's entirely immoral of course, but it runs along the same rationale that if you want to reduce cancer incidence, you could just kill everyone at the age of 50, and hey presto, cancer is no longer a major cause of death.

The same logic applies here.

In fact this one is more logically sound, as famine situation resulting from war usually occur because there's no economic infrastructure, and because ongoing conflict prevents both food aid and rebuilding of infrastructure. If you make it so that one side wins - even if its the bad guys - then you create stability, and end famine.

That doesn't make it moral, of course, but the logic is sound.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

However, this issue is about a famine occurring because of the nation's weapons,

I still don't see how that follows.

I mean sure, murdering farmers would lead to a famine, but the main problem is the weapons being used on civilians, which per definition causes a bunch of deaths even before you factor in the famine. The actual famine seems barely relevant to the narrative here.

No, war itself causes famine, even if you don't kill farmers. If any part of the food supply chain is disrupted famine can result. Sure, farmers dying can be a factor, but its a small one. It's also about whether farmers can safely work their fields, whether there exists the logistics and economy for them to be able to make a living from working their fields, and whether there is sufficient societal stability to give a foundation to commerce beyond the barter level.

Likewise the death toll from famine is a far larger consequence than the death toll from violence in these circumstances.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/ ... r-honesty/
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/conf ... -1.3187528
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupboo ... 22we0j.htm

It's about infrastructure and economy. Also to quote the last link there, children are the ones who tend to die en masse:

Children lose access to material and social resources at all social levels and are therefore more at risk of malnutrition, illness, and death. The most immediate and dramatic victims of hunger and war tend to be children, who die in great numbers of malnutrition-related illness; in Somalia in 1992, some estimate that up to 90 per cent of children under five died. It is a truism that governments at war invest fewer resources in child welfare: they favour military expenditures, and international assistance and investment (especially under conflict conditions) do not make up the deficit. UNICEF attempted to measure these investments by assessing which countries are least likely to meet World Summit for Children goals for improved child survival by the end of the decade. In their sample, those least likely to meet them are all "countries currently or recently affected by war or internal strife: Angola, Burundi, Haiti, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Zaire" (Mason et al. 1996).

The issue here is asking the question of moral culpability - if the famine is caused by war, and if the war is fought with weapons you sold to the aggressor, are you culpable?