Time for our weekly off-topic discussion once again. This week, we'll wade into matters current with a bit of a theoretical bent. "Bush sucks" posts will be deleted.
There has been much talk about preemptive military action in the past couple of years, and there seems to be a growing strain of thought that advocates strongly against pre-emption. It is good for democracies to have inherent reservations about the use of force, but is it realistic to swear off preemption, as a matter of principle, in an era when a small group of committed people could quite conceivably detonate a nuclear device in a major urban population center?
If not, what criteria should we use as a test for "just preemption"? Could traditional Just War theories do this work, or do they need to be amended? What about other Cold War-era schools of thought, like realism? Can we formulate an adequate framework for making such decisions in the face of asymmetric threats, nuclear consequences, and incomplete intelligence?
|AMD drops prices on the Radeon RX 460 and RX 470||37|
|Reports: Radeon RX 470D is a budget Polaris card for China||8|
|Examining reports of slow write speeds on the 32GB iPhone 7||25|
|Cellular Insights dissects iPhone 7 Plus modem performance||11|
|Deals of the week: scads of high-performance storage and more||9|
|Tobii's Eye Tracker 4C knows where your head is||2|
|GeForce driver 375.57 is prepared for Titanfall 2||7|
|Phanteks Eclipse P400 gets a tempered glass option||0|
|Radeon 16.10.2 drivers add support for October's big games||10|
|A real "console monitor" would be 720p @ 30 Hz ;P||+62|