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 (54482)	10/23/2001 12:45:32 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

I think you are over-estimating the number of the terrorists who are willing to die in the cause. It is often said that there are many but I think there are only a relative few. As Patton said - better the enemy die for their cause rather than we for ours. Most of the good people in Afghanistan have moved to the borders where they can be kept from harm's way. Those who do not have the sense to do that may be collateral damage - but there won't be vast numbers.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54482)	10/23/2001 12:46:26 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Cary, We might as well just surrender then. Why fight them at all. Lets declare defeat and go home. Let them kill 250,000 here and 250,000 there and do nothing. And point of information, i never said attack population centers--i said get bin laden and get the terrorists. In my scenario would you support unrelenting B52 strikes and carpet bombing instead of nukes? Is there any military action you would support?? Do you support what we are now doing? mike

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54482)	10/23/2001 4:59:02 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (54482)	10/23/2001 6:57:28 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

If a terrorist smallpox attack kills 250,000, there will be no response that will help very much. We are NOT evil. We can NOT kill 250,000 innocent civilians because their leaders murdered us. We will expend every effort to destroy the perpetrators. Gee, It sure is fortunate that you were not in charge of the United States during World War 2. It is clear to me that we did in fact kill 250,000 innocent German and 250,000 innocent Japanese civilians, because their leaders made war upon the US. The Germans died when we carpet bombed their cities and the Japanese died in the nuclear attacks. Cary Salsberg would have been raising the white flag over the US Capital on December 8th 1941.