North Korea - Slippery slope fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
The current argument goes:
1) If we don't do something, North Korea will continue its missile development program
2) If they continue the program, eventually they'll have a long range ICBM capable of hitting the US
3) If they develop such a weapon, they will use it and reign nuclear terror in an unprovoked attack
4) We must do something now about North Korea and we must not allow to them to develop long range ICBM's in order to avoid a nuclear attack
Is this a slippery slope? The argument says that simply possessing a WMD will likely result in it's use, therefore we must not allow a rogue nation to possess it. The whole point of nuclear weapons is deterrence, whats to say North Korea wants to commit suicide by attacking the USA?
Given past hostilities between nations that did not result in nuclear attacks, cold war, Arab/Israel hostilities, the argument seems fallacious.
1) If we don't do something, North Korea will continue its missile development program
2) If they continue the program, eventually they'll have a long range ICBM capable of hitting the US
3) If they develop such a weapon, they will use it and reign nuclear terror in an unprovoked attack
4) We must do something now about North Korea and we must not allow to them to develop long range ICBM's in order to avoid a nuclear attack
Is this a slippery slope? The argument says that simply possessing a WMD will likely result in it's use, therefore we must not allow a rogue nation to possess it. The whole point of nuclear weapons is deterrence, whats to say North Korea wants to commit suicide by attacking the USA?
Given past hostilities between nations that did not result in nuclear attacks, cold war, Arab/Israel hostilities, the argument seems fallacious.
Answers
3I would certainly call slippery slope. As you point out, the connection between them having it and using it is very weak... especially given the countries have currently have or had them that never used them.
The slippery slope usually starts with something innocuous that it is argued will slide into something ominous. Here, the top of the slide is pretty ominous.
The fallacy here is more a form of jingoism, to my mind. At its heart is a fallacy that states only First World countries can be trusted with world-ending technologies. Perhaps Prof. Bennett has a fallacy for this? Ad superiorum? Inverse ad baculum (they'll use the stick if we don't stop them)?
The fallacy here is more a form of jingoism, to my mind. At its heart is a fallacy that states only First World countries can be trusted with world-ending technologies. Perhaps Prof. Bennett has a fallacy for this? Ad superiorum? Inverse ad baculum (they'll use the stick if we don't stop them)?
Lets hope the Donald and the higher ups in the US admin took bo's logical fallacies course:)
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course