OT re use of nukes:
I said: "Let's say we get info that Bin Laden is in a deep cave, somewhere in a thinly populated rural area". I said, "a small nuke". They come in a wide variety of sizes. I did not propose carpet bombing civilian areas. Think about what I'm saying, instead of an emotional automatic rejection. Think about the alternatives, the plausible alternatives. Especially the fact that an extended war, using conventional weapons against a guerrila army (which is what the Taliban is going to become after Kabul falls), is likely to push a large fraction of the (innocent) Afghan population from hunger to starvation. The alternative to my suggestion, is the kind of war the Turks waged against their Kurds recently, and the Brits waged against the Boers a century ago, and we waged (unsuccessfully) in Vietnam. The casualties in those wars, as a fraction of the population, were far more (and far more indiscriminate) than the solution I'm suggesting. I'm going to say something you will consider absurd: my solution is more humane, and more civilized, than your solution, because it results in fewer innocents being hurt. I have the moral high ground, here. IMO. |
