Ram Jethmalani is living in Wonderland–
First, let me repeat, I do not suggest a war with China. Our membership of United Nations and adherence to its Charter puts it out of the list of available alternatives. Secondly, we are bound by a constitutional commitment under the 51st Article of our basic law to eschew war as an instrument of foreign policy. Thirdly, the same Article mandates that all international disputes should be resolved by the pacific method of arbitration.
We must, therefore, loudly proclaim our peaceful intentions and desire for an honourable and urgent settlement. Arbitration is the best method of resolution. International tribunals are available for this purpose. In 1947 we determined the boundaries of Bengal, Punjab and Assam by appointing a commission of three judges who did a remarkable job. We graciously accepted its awards and no difficulty of any kind has arisen since then.
Let us be clear that our weaker economic and military position in any event should put armed conflict out of our thoughts. The Charter however permits defensive arrangements between nations. We must endeavour to have such defense treaties with friendly democracies of the world. The US, the European Union, the Commonwealth countries, Russia and Japan are candidates for forging with them bilateral or multilateral alliances. This is nothing but practice of the old doctrine of the Balance of Power, a dominant principle of successful diplomacy for more than 200 years. When a powerful state poses threat of aggression and war, the only solution is a coalition of other powers who individually are not strong enough to stand up to the aggressor. We had a treaty of the same kind with the Soviet Union once. Let us then offer arbitration to the Chinese. If they reject it, India will have strengthened its moral case and created reliable friends to fight on our side….
The cold war between India and China got me thinking about a libertarian “philosophy of war.” Rothbard has some articles (look it up on mises.org) [edit: like this one], but his argument against nuclear weapons isn’t convincing. MAD is a concept that cannot be disposed of that easily. Apparently there’s one book on the subject by someone who’s been influenced by Mises and Hayek…
While looking up counterarguments to Timothy Sandefur’s critique of the Randian position on IP (if you can refute her, then you have refuted all valid arguments for ip—her’s is the only moral argument that I am aware of; utilitarians can take a hike), I came across this “discussion” (slugfest?) on anarchy at Diana Hsieh’s blog. One of the participants is Stephan Kinsella. I can both take and give “nasty.” But this really is something.
To any pacifists (“no war. ever.”) out there, the position is both immoral and impractical.