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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54460)	10/23/2001 10:59:47 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Nukes will propel us on to another "ascending crescendo toward hell." Understand your point. Dont buy the conclusion. Nukes used wisely (theres an oxymoron for you) could stop the "ascending crescendo toward hell" that we are now on. Again my extreme example--Mt bin laden with only he and his supporters on it--worth taking the risk??? Perhaps a tactical nuke which after exploded we could say it was his and that it went off accidentally. Poor boy. mike

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54460)	10/23/2001 11:06:42 AM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 70976

OT - War & Nukes "Nukes will propel us on to another "ascending crescendo toward hell" You may well be correct in this. On the other hand, human/womankind has come a long way while developing ever more efficient weapons of mass destruction. The enemy has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons on us if you are willing to count anthrax as such a weapon. Would we classify the airliners crashed into high rise buildings such a weapon? By many measures they were much more devastating than the entrie Japanese attack on Hawaii. We were once willing to use such a weapon but that was over half a century ago. We were then willing to intern Japanese Americans. We are not willing to intern Middle Eastern Americans now and we may not be willing to use weapons of mass destruction now. Things have changed. You have made a very large assumption in your statement. Is it a visceral reaction, a fear of the unknown or a well thought-out conclusion which you will elucidate for us? If fear of the unknown had been a consideration we would not have nuked Japan.