But do you want the Soviet Union to have a written, explicit policy that says… “Anyone who ignores orders in a nuclear war scenario, who is later vindicated by events, will be rewarded and promoted”?
I don’t see the catch, by the way. Could someone please explain? Unless “vindicated by events” includes “USSR having dominion over a blasted wasteland”, this sounds good.
If the Kremlin publicly announces a policy, saying that they may reward some soldiers who disobey orders in a nuclear scenario? Then this raises the odds that a Russian official will refuse to launch a nuke—even when they have evidence that enemy nukes have already been fired on Russia.
(So far, so good. However...)
The problem is that it doesn’t just raise the odds of disobedience, it also raises the perceived odds as well. ie it will make Americans think that they have a better chance of launching a first strike and “getting away with it”.
A publically announced policy like this would have weakened the USSR’s nuclear deterrent. Arguably, this raises everyone’s chances of dying in a nuclear war, even the Americans.
Because if you’re considering disobeying orders, it is presumably because you think you WILL be vindicated by events (regardless of the actual likelihood of that transpiring). Therefore, punishing only people who turn out to be wrong fails to sufficiently discourage anybody who actually should be discouraged :P
Very few people disobey orders because they think they will be vindicated by events. It is far more common for people to disobey orders for purposes of personal gain or out of laziness, fear, or other considerations. The person, especially the soldier, who disobeys a direct order from recognized authority on either moral or tactical grounds is an uncommon scenario.
It may be an uncommon scenario, but it’s the scenario that’s under discussion. We’re talking about situations where a soldier has orders to do one thing, and believes that moral or tactical considerations require them to do something else—and we’re asking what ethical injunctions should apply in that scenario.
To be fair, Jubilee wasn’t very specific about that.
I don’t see the catch, by the way. Could someone please explain? Unless “vindicated by events” includes “USSR having dominion over a blasted wasteland”, this sounds good.
Alternate answer:
If the Kremlin publicly announces a policy, saying that they may reward some soldiers who disobey orders in a nuclear scenario? Then this raises the odds that a Russian official will refuse to launch a nuke—even when they have evidence that enemy nukes have already been fired on Russia.
(So far, so good. However...)
The problem is that it doesn’t just raise the odds of disobedience, it also raises the perceived odds as well. ie it will make Americans think that they have a better chance of launching a first strike and “getting away with it”.
A publically announced policy like this would have weakened the USSR’s nuclear deterrent. Arguably, this raises everyone’s chances of dying in a nuclear war, even the Americans.
Because if you’re considering disobeying orders, it is presumably because you think you WILL be vindicated by events (regardless of the actual likelihood of that transpiring). Therefore, punishing only people who turn out to be wrong fails to sufficiently discourage anybody who actually should be discouraged :P
Very few people disobey orders because they think they will be vindicated by events. It is far more common for people to disobey orders for purposes of personal gain or out of laziness, fear, or other considerations. The person, especially the soldier, who disobeys a direct order from recognized authority on either moral or tactical grounds is an uncommon scenario.
It may be an uncommon scenario, but it’s the scenario that’s under discussion. We’re talking about situations where a soldier has orders to do one thing, and believes that moral or tactical considerations require them to do something else—and we’re asking what ethical injunctions should apply in that scenario.
To be fair, Jubilee wasn’t very specific about that.