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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Keith Feral who wrote (198399)	8/22/2006 12:17:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

However, it would be nice to be able to neutralize nuclear weapons before countries like n korea and iran get the technology. Yes, but what if those weapons are smuggled into a port via a ship? However, I agree that we need an effective ballistic missile defense, if only as a deterrent that "trumps" any plans by N. Korea/Iran (or any other totalitarian regime) should they attempt to hide behind a nuclear shield, yet continue to wage asymmetric wars via terrorist proxies. But war is never going to be "sterile".. and you know something, I hope that it never is. Because the more surgical we make our weapons, the lower the threshold will become for employing them. And war should never be entered into lightly. But on the other hand, wouldn't it have been nice if we had had bunker busting bombs that could have killed Hitler before his war wound up killing millions of innocent people and ravaging the entire continent of Europe, including Western Russia? Maybe he would have had second thoughts? Probably not.. Germany would have had better technology than us anyway.. and it would have been Winston Churchill who would have died in HIS bunker. Hawk