Defensive violence is not authoritarian like offensive violence
Would defensive violence still be termed not authoritarian if a state uses a nuclear weapon to retaliate on the killing of its people by another state that used guns?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
well that would be complicated and up for debate.
its generally defensive and not authoritarian when its to keep another from attacking freedoms. The state is attacking the freedoms of the individuals in the attacking country in an effort to defend its own. So its still authoritarian
Thanks a lot for clarifying this issue.
In my opinion, the effort that this State is making when launching the nuclear bomb is not focused on defending itself, but on revenge, and is using a means that will affect the innocent. For that reason I do not consider that this example represents a real exception about "defensive violence is not authoritarian".
well, mutually assured destruction. Being willing to carry out revenge could be considered the only possible defensive move in this complicated world. (well, for states)
If the force you use is definitely greater than what is necessary for the defense, are you really defending yourself or have you taken an offensive position? In my opinion, if you use a nuclear weapon as revenge against another who attacked you with firearms, you are no longer in a defensive position.