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: bentway who wrote (222307)	3/3/2007 10:54:21 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's a great idea. While I am not for the offensive use of nuclear weapons against a conventional strike, I would be 100% behind your suggestion. I think it will take hard and fast rules to keep nuclear weapons from being used by states, and we should put those rules in to place. Of course maybe such agreements already exist, tacitly- but I'd think it might be wise to broadcast them, if they do exist.

To: bentway who wrote (222307)	3/4/2007 3:41:27 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

That's the question. I don't really know how crazy those right wing Likudniks ARE. If they're as nutty as Nadine, they MIGHT "pre-emptively" nuke Iran. If they do, as you said, THEY should be nuked. We should tell BOTH countries that. Wait a minute - Nuke both countries? So even if you are nuking a country in retaliation for using nukes against you, you get nuked anyway? Wouldn't this then obligate Russia to nuke us (we just nuked Israel and Iran)? Maybe even nuke us twice? And then NK would be obligated to try to nuke Russia, but accidentally probably just have a really big explosion near Vladivosstok which might have been a nuke or might not, sort of hard to tell....