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.

Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (4)	10/24/2001 1:14:53 PM
From: FiloF	Respond to of 786

I agree. It was worth a shot, though.

To: michael97123 who wrote (4)	10/24/2001 1:21:43 PM
From: FiloF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Doesn't help that I usually have no time to post during the day, either. Oh well... Your nuclear threat discussion was definitely worth continuing the dialogue. Perhaps it will continue sporadically on the AMAT site...

To: michael97123 who wrote (4)	10/24/2001 2:38:03 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 786

Mike, you wrote: Would it follow then that massive chem/bio attack on the US should be deterred by a massive chem/bio attack on the offender? Or would Jacob's limited strike be preferential? I would prefer not to have to do either, but i think Jacob's solution would be better than the one above. Or would you neither in the face of 250k american casualties? These are tough questions and exactly the ones i was looking for a dialogue on--reason being that the odds are getting higher that we might have to face up to them in the not to distant future." Message 16551310 I do not favor using nuclear weapons unless they have first been used against us, because we are vulnerable to them, and once we used them, their deterrent effect would become diluted. But nukes are the ultimate weapon, and as such are a special case. Although responding in kind would be appropriate for nuclear attacks, it does not follow that it would be appropriate for other types of attacks. So no, I do not favor retaliating against chem/bio attacks with chem/bio. For one thing, I do not think they are effective enough to be a deterrent. We have other strengths that can and should be brought to bear. And if chem/bio was that effective, then there would be no way to keep them from hurting ourselves as much as the enemy, not to mention innocent persons world-wide. Consider smallpox for example. Once it was reintroduced, it could sweep over the whole world. Laying aside the issue of ever again being able to claim the moral high ground, would you really want that on your conscience? It's for the same reason that we no longer deliberately target civilians. One could argue that since they deliberately targeted our civilians, then we have the right to deliberately target theirs. But in so doing we would become what we claim to deplore. The issue is our perception of ourselves, not others' perceptions of us. We have been attacked. We should defend ourselves. I am 100 per cent behind self defense. Conversely, I am 100 percent against revenge. I am firmly convinced that revenge ultimately harms the avenger as much or more than it hurts the enemy. The moment that revenge becomes our driving motive, in that instant we descend into the Gates of Hell.