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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (42176)	1/11/2002 6:54:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

so we better development adequate missile defense systems and security as soon as humanly possible. Its nice to find points of agreement in the midst of all this disagreement and argument. I can agree with you that developing missile defenses is a good idea. TIm

To: Yogizuna who wrote (42176)	1/11/2002 7:31:51 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

we better development adequate missile defense systems and security as soon as humanly possible. We finally agree on something. Good for you! It would have been nicer if your grammar had been correct, but I can agree with the thought even if not with the presentation.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (42176)	1/12/2002 6:22:54 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No, I don't know. Decisions like this are made on the basis of best estimates, which are often disputable. However, I do not feel obliged to prove that it was correct, only that it was reasonable to drop the bombs. My point is not that all are guilty, but that combatants are generally not much guiltier, and therefore the calculation that civilian lives are worth more is overblown. I do not care if more civilians would have been killed in an invasion or blockade. I am pretty sure that more people, on both sides, would have been killed, and that a number of them would have been civilians. We do not kill people in war because they are guilty, but in order to save ourselves. Even if all the fatalities had been on our side, if the only way of avoiding them was to use the bombs, it would have been a plausible conclusion. If there would have been a number of Japanese fatalities, that merely buttresses the conclusion to use the bombs. If, finally, it is probable that a number of fatalities would have been Japanese civilians, the last scruple is broken down. The argument does not dissolve all scruples about targeting civilians. What it does do is suggest that we be conservative with human life, whether in uniform or out, whether our own or the enemies. The best result is the one that leaves the most people standing. Additionally, traditional scruples about targeting civilians should, I think, remain in force except in extreme situations, on the basis that we should use the least force necessary to accomplish the task. In other words, it is preferable to get hard military targets because they are direct threats.