To: rich evans who wrote (78748 ) 3/1/2003 4:57:49 PM From: TigerPaw Respond to I don't think the decision is a matter of fallacies but of risk analysis Government and other studies have given estimates of the deaths and economic damage from use of a WMD by terrorists in the US. It varies according to the weapon with biological the worst. But you are talking 10,000 to 1 mill deaths and costs of hundreds of billions to our economy. So lets use 100,000 deaths and 250 bill. sos.se The studies of biological attack also indicate that they are likely to be much more confined than your figures suggest. rand.org There was, after all, a terrorist biological anthrax attack already to give some perspective on the magnitude of the cost and disruption. So how much of evidence should we need to act against anyone who has WMD . This is some form of the Hasty Generalization fallacy where a specific case is presented and then assumed to apply to all others. Even worse, I don’t think even you see the need to attack every country which has either chemical or biological weapons, which is most of Europe, Russia, China, India, Austrialia, and probably Tonga. The Spotlight fallacy also seems to apply. These are different legal standards of evidence. With these kind of death and damages possible, I would submit that only some evidence is required before we must act. These acts are to prevent possibilities not probabilities. Preemption is part of warfare. We are already at war. So if we act and stop Iraq's WMD and any possible cooperation with terrorists and also start a democratization of the mideast to try and change the area, a breeding ground for terrorists to a democratic area, then we are doing a lot to protect the US from these horrible possibilities. Red Herring fallacy to make the reader appear to have agreed with preemption, because the reader already agreed with war, because the reader already agreed that some tiny thing could be done on the basis of the slimmest of possibilities. A risk work taking IMO. But many other's feel the consequences will be the opposite and the risk is to great regardless of the risks of inaction and potential American deaths and economic loss from use of WMD here and in fact many believe that attacking Iraq will just speed up and make for a greater chance of WMD in US. All fair opinions and debatable. But fallacies have nothing to do with it. but . A quick recount of possible counters can steer your reader to rebuttals that you are best prepared for.Apples and Oranges fallacy.
