North Korea - Slippery slope fallacy?

Question

mike	North Korea - Slippery slope fallacy? 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.
	asked on Tuesday, Aug 08, 2017 11:42:47 AM by mike
Top Categories Suggested by Community
Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Bo Bennett, PhD 0	I 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.
	answered on Tuesday, Aug 08, 2017 11:45:41 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments

mike 0	Lets hope the Donald and the higher ups in the US admin took bo's logical fallacies course:)
	answered on Tuesday, Aug 08, 2017 06:23:13 PM by mike
Comments

Jordan Pine 0	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)?
	answered on Wednesday, Aug 09, 2017 08:34:25 AM by Jordan Pine
Comments