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: que seria who wrote (8771)	9/27/2001 4:39:40 PM
From: JungleInvestor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Re: <<Using even small WMD in such retaliation would likely cause huge civilian loss, which is why Bush should be (and I hope, is) warning Muslim gov'ts what will happen if WMD are used against us by groups they harbor or support. >> que seria, suggest you reread article with thought of Sam Cohen. He is not talking about dropping an A-bomb as we did in Hiroshima and killing hundreds of thousands and injuring the health of many thousands more. His suggestion is to use a neutron bomb to target, very effectively, the soldiers in a one mile radius with very little lingering radiation. His suggestion is aimed at limiting civilian casualties. Dropping conventional bombs in the Gulf War, he said, killed more civilians than soldiers. People apparently have a horror of using anything nuclear because it is "nuclear" per se. However, if Sam Cohen's proposal is analyzed objectively, one can see that a neutron bomb can be used very effectively AND limit loss of innocent victims. One can also see that it is definitely NOT a weapon of mass destruction, but a very focused bomb that can kill all people in a very limited area. For example, if intelligence found bin Laden's bunker in the mountains, at least one mile away from any population centers, then dropping a neutron bomb would virtually assure his death even though the inside of the bunker was not destroyed. Another example would be to destroy a regiment of Republican Guards marching in the desert away from population centers. Hitting the center of a terrorist training camp is an example that Sam Cohen gave. IMO, we should not worry about what other people think, we should use the most effective weapons at our disposal to destroy terrorists and limit as much as possible the loss of life among our soldiers and innocent civilians. Why wait until the enemy uses a weapon of mass destruction on us before we use a neutron bomb, which is not a weapon of mass destruction, but a very effective military weapon. Isn't it enough to know that terrorists are developing weapons of mass destruction and are training to use them (additionally the hijackers were interested in transporting hazardous wastes and crop dusters)?! BTW, I agree with Ed wholeheartedly about not killing innocent relatives of terrorists. We should take the moral high ground because we are one nation under God and we believe in justice for all. However, I strongly believe that neutron bombs used in the way Sam Cohen described are not any more immoral than a bullet used to shoot the enemy.

To: que seria who wrote (8771)	9/27/2001 9:13:00 PM
From: Malcolm Winfield	Respond to of 23153

Que Seria, where did you ever get the idea that I want to use anything other than conventional weaponry to win this war? I posted an article stating the opinions of the developer of the neutron bomb, but I've never even mentioned it in any of my posts, nor have I condoned its use -- even tacitly. I'm sorry if it was implied simply by posting the article. I certainly don't want innocent people to be murdered in other countries, and I hope that conventional weapons will be sufficient to take out the Taliban. Regards, Malcolm.