SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials
AMAT 230.77+0.9%Nov 12 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54482)10/23/2001 4:59:02 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) of 70976
 
OT re using nukes:

You said: "If we use nukes, be assured that it will eliminate any deterrent effect" Actually, a deterrent only works if your opponent believes you will use it, if you are sufficiently provoked. I'd say, killing thousands of non-combatants, and using biological weapons, counts as "sufficiently provoked". Our opponents have broken all "rules of war", no matter how broadly you interpret those rules. They have displayed a willingness to use any weapon at their disposal. Any. We didn't use anthrax on them, but that didn't stop them from using it on us. Nuclear weapons have not been used in 46 years. Almost everyone believes they won't be used, under any circumstance. That means they, currently, have no deterrent effect.

Let's say we get info that Bin Laden is in a deep cave, somewhere in a thinly populated rural area of Afghanistan. Let's say we aren't sure our largest conventional weapon can reach him, but we are very certain a small nuke can. Let's say that using the nuke now, can significantly shorten the war, and probably save thousands of civilian lives, who will starve and freeze this winter if the war drags on. I'd say, the nuke is the right tool to use.

You said: "We can NOT kill 250,000 innocent civilians". Sorry, but our track record says otherwise. We can, and have, in the past. Repeatedly. With less justification than today. Just one example: When we used nukes on Japan in 1945, the war was already won. Germany had surrendered. Japan doesn't grow enough food for it's population, and has no deposits of things essential for war-making, like oil or a list of essential metals. We didn't need to use nukes. We didn't even have to invade them. Our homeland was not under any threat. All we had to do was maintain the blockade, and their unconditional surrender was guaranteed. It would have taken a bit longer, that's all. But, the Japanese don't hate us. They have forgiven us our sins, perhaps because they realised that Pearl Harbor left them no moral high ground to stand on. The Afghans would forgive us, too, if we used the Big Stick.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext