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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4144)	3/27/2003 6:58:05 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

DEDICATED TO THE TRAITORS ON THIS THREAD: webpages.charter.net Better at their worst than you will ever be at your best.

To: epicure who wrote (4144)	3/27/2003 7:02:34 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

No mutually assured destruction is about NOT using them preemptive neutralization would be about finding a way to use them first And the concept of MAD is to assure that a preemptive neutralization of a perceived threat isn't used against one's interests. one should neutralize threats in ways that don't assure that they are neutralized at the same time. So, no, it would be a bad idea for China to use nukes to preemptively neutralize the threat that the U.S. may pose toward them. However, they may want to try other stratagies. I do think that anybody who chooses to PNaT (preemptively neutralize a threat) should make damn sure that the threat is real and not an overreaction to other events. And that is really where I see the conflict in thinking.