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: Lane3 who wrote (72599)	8/19/2003 6:25:32 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

OTOH to the extent that we would be seen as being less reluctant the deterence value is enhanced possibly making it less likely for the weapon to ever actually get used. I wouldn't be much less reluctant. Its still a nuclear weapon that can kill a lot of people. Also its "only kill people but leave structures intact" ability is overrated by some. There still is a big explosion and fallout but both are small relative to the amount of immediate radiation produced when compared to regular nuclear weapons. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (72599)	8/20/2003 11:09:07 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Hear hear. The neutron bomb is incredibly appealing to military planners. Bomb a city, then walk into it with no fear of radiation, depeleted uranium, or unexploded bomblets and with no rubble to deal with and with no snipers hiding in the wreckage, just lots and lots of dead bodies that can be quickly tidied away and there's a bran spanking clean city for your people to move into, or more likely for you to move friendly natives into. Electricity, water, sewage systems, all intact and working. How absolutely appealing!