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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stitch who wrote (3740)	5/28/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: Thomas Haegin	Respond to of 9980

Stitch, it's some days ago already, so old stuff: << I think that the world would be much better off without massively destructive weapons. But to say that if one has it, all should is going a bit off the deep end. Would you include Libya for example? Or, anyone remember Ghadaafi's buddy Idi Amin? I would say fewer is better then all inasmuch as its already a fact of life. Anything to decrease the chances of actual usage IMO is better. >> Yeah, I fully understand what you are saying. Of course I'd prefer if Libya didn't have the bomb. (Have they??) OTOH, if they could convince the World and demonstrate that they use the technology responsibly (essentially NOT using it), even them deserve to have it. My point was more about the supremacy of one people over another or one nation over the other which I in principle am against. Of course, the threat felt depends on the degree of faith that the neighbours place in the political system/government of the particular nuclear state. And me, too, rate Libya very low on this scale. I fully agree that less bombs and A-tech is definitely preferrable to more of it. Thomas