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 (42179)	1/11/2002 7:06:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yogi, two facts (or to be fair to your side of the argument, one fact and one opinion) cause me to think the parallel is weak. 1 - We are not at war with those militants, unless perhaps if they are members of Al-qaida and even then it is not a total war or a declared war. 2- Nuking them would be unlikely to save more lives then it destroys. In fact its my opinion that it would the survivors in that area and Muslims everywhere to the extent that it wouldn't save lives. It would not reduce terrorism it would increase it, even if you don't count the direct deaths from the nukes as terrorism. Another important fact is that there is not an even reasonably realistic possibility that using nukes in this way will end a war. justification will eventually be found to do it again.... IMO. If you mean someone might argue for it because they see it as justified I agree. If you mean that it will actually be justified by the same standards I have applied to the WWII use of atomic weapons then I must disagree. Tim

To: Yogizuna who wrote (42179)	1/11/2002 7:36:41 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

once you make an argument to use the bomb to save lives in the future (as in WWII) and the evil deed is done, justification will eventually be found to do it again.... IMO. Well, suppose China suddenly attacked us, without provocation or warning. Suppose the war went on for years, with hundreds of thousands of casualities; suppose we were ahead on points, but it seemed clear that the Chinese would never surrender until we had planted our flag in the Imperial Palace in Bejing, and that we would lose half a million men, including perhaps my son, accomplishing that. Would I advocate dropping the bomb if I were convinced it would end the war without further loss of American lives? You bet I would. Of course, we both know that scenario won't happen that way, but there is no point in having a weapon if the other side is absolutely convinced, correctly, that you will never use it.