Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (8697)	9/26/2001 12:13:48 PM
From: Sharp_End_Of_Drill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed & Gottfried, the horror in Germany was much worse than either of the nuclear bombs, or both of them together. The Allies fire bombed Dresden knowing full well it was packed with refugees fleeing the red army. Civilians of Dresden alone killed that night are about 100,000 and refugees - nobody knows but the total dead could be double that figure. We also fire bombed Tokyo and killed upwards of 70,000 in one night. War is never kind, but the points about using nukes are spot on. I favor pin point attacks on finance and infrastructure, along with key assassinations. Sharp

To: Gottfried who wrote (8697)	9/26/2001 12:17:14 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

It seems that dead is dead and from a purely Spockian point of view (as in Star Trek) it shouldn't make any difference. The reason that I think it does is because nukes are a combination of explosion and residual disease. The radiation and the long term effects and sickness it can indiscrimately cause make it a less discriminating weapon than a blast. You can argue that the effect is limited with tactical nukes but it is there nonetheless. I would hope that this would be a weapon of last resort and not a weapon of choice. Ed