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?
|Cherry MX Low Profile RGB switches arrive in the Ducky Blade Air||0|
|Nothing Day Shortbread||3|
|Here's all of TR's CES 2018 coverage in one place||6|
|Intel Core i5-8500 appears in SiSoft database||0|
|Tuesday deals: cheap SSDs, motherboards, and a sweet laptop||7|
|Report: Intel TLC SSD 760p and QLC SSD 660p on the way soon||8|
|be quiet! displays its Dark Rock 4 and Dark Rock Pro 4 coolers||20|
|Gigabyte, Asus, and MSI prep updates against Meltdown and Spectre||41|
|EVGA teases its 2200-W power supply and Z10 keyboard at CES||25|
|There's finally an SSD with a Quad-Damage feature! Unfortunately it's self-inflicted quad damage.||+19|