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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (54524)	10/23/2001 8:53:28 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Jacob, RE: I have the moral high ground, here. IMO. Dropping nuclear bombs, even "only" one, is somehow the moral high ground? What type of twisted, convoluted logic do you use where you could even remotely believe such a thing? The very notion is absurd on the surface and becomes even more ridiculous as it is studied more closely. Somewhat related: This will be my last post on the AMAT thread. The thread no longer serves my purpose to learn and post relevant AMAT and semiconductor information. Additionally, the dynamic discussions of the past have given way to a type of group-think now, something wholly unappealing to me. Everyone here please remember one thing. Just as in investing, where you need to question the motives of the masses(herd), the same critical thinking and criticism needs to be done in the political sphere. Just as it was unpopular to go against tech in '99 and early '00, so is it now unpopular, even considered unpatriotic in some circles, to go against the war in Afghanistan. We need radicals; people willing to question the status quo even at the risk of appearing offensive, unpatriotic, etc, etc. Just something to remember. It's been fun. Regards to all, Brian

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (54524)	10/24/2001 7:52:51 AM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 70976

You have a great point here that a small nuke, if the only effective means of ending this and minimal lasting damage could be more humane.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (54524)	10/24/2001 9:34:27 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Jacob, You made our point better than I was able to. There is a qualitative line between conventional and non-conventional weapons and we need to be real careful before we cross it. But in our scenario, it certainly would be more humane to cross it that not. Fire bombing of dresden and tokyo and many other battles or attacks took more life than nukes. And as far as states that support terrorism are concerned, they should again be warned as Iraq was during the Gulf War. Use bio/chem and nukes are on the table. bin Laden may want to be a martyr; Sadaam is a western creation and wants his 72 virgins now while he still in producing some testosterone. mike PS Sorry about Brian. No one wanted him to leave.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (54524)	10/24/2001 1:18:55 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Nuclear weapons have not been used on people since WWII. It would be a huge mistake for the U.S. to re-initiate their use, for any reason. If we did so, the likelihood of their use by terrorists and others would increase dramatically, both for revenge and because we would have shown the world that their use was no longer unthinkable. It is much more valuable if it is kept in the realm of a deterrent, and for that purpose, it is vital that we make it known that use of nukes on us will result in retaliation, and for no other reason. That is the time, and the only time, when your target selection ideas should come into use, IMO.