Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2001 02:38:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
716 times
|
| |
|
|
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:GIywD1.6y3@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > With that logic, I'd expect you to next say that bulletproof vests on police
> > officers invite criminals to shoot them.
>
> I don't think that's a fair extension. Bulletproof vests are
> *not* sold as a guarantee of protection, rather as an added
> margin of safety in given situations.
Neither is our missle system guaranteed protection, from what I understand of
it.
> The problem with missile-defence is precisely that which James
> and Dave pointed out: it creates a fiction that a nuclear war,
> however limited, is winnable. The lack of any parity in the
> rest of the world with regards to an effective--or even partially
> so--ABM system is even worse, because it encourages calculations
> of "reasonable" loss.
Now, that's a good point. I'm definitely against nuclear war, but I'm also for
protecting our soil. Tough issue though.
> > It is imperative to our national security that we defend ourselves against
> > attacks. Especially because the weapons of mass destruction are making their
> > way into the hands of terrorists.
>
> What weapons are these? Ballistic missiles? Have you EVER heard
> of a terrorist organization launching an intercontinental ballistic
> missile?
S'pose you're right. But I still stand by my first sentence :)
> Nuclear terrorism won't come from above--it'll come from within,
> and just when we foolishly believe we're safe. But also don't
> *over*estimate the ruthlessness of terrorists--the sheer horror
> of the nuclear nightmare is anathema to most of them.
Why is that? I would think they'd be giddy at the thought of nuking one of our
cities. And since the terrorist has no homeland to be retaliated against...
> All the
> "Iron Eagle III" fantasies about bloodthirsty Muslim nuke-fiends
> do is convince Americans that terrorists and the societies from
> which they hail are somehow not worthy of the label "human."
Haven't seen the third one of the series yet. While I of course think that
they're worthy of being called 'human,' their terrorism is unquestionably
inhumane. I fully support retaliations for terrorist acts against the US and
against American citizens when there is a sufficient trail to 'whodunnit.'
Its unfortunate for the Muslim world that their small percentage of extermist
groups give them a bad rap as a stereotype. It also baffles me that the
extremist groups are so senseless and insane in their acts.
What's the big deal with the US anyways? Is it because we're percieved as a
'Christian nation?'
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Yes, but the perception--which is based in our adulation over technological can-do fixes, something the US has always had a severe disposition toward indulging in--is what's important. (...) It's the question of which is more dangerous: The (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) I don't think that's a fair extension. Bulletproof vests are *not* sold as a guarantee of protection, rather as an added margin of safety in given situations. The problem with missile-defence is precisely that which James and Dave pointed out: (...) (23 years ago, 1-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
