Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 04:30:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
425 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> So I ask again, why not use the same weapons now? Are we not currently at
> war with a fanatical, evil emp^H^H^H group (or groups), and need to win? Is
> it not appropriate to use those weapons to win this war? Why / why not?
I'll discuss that if you like, but not whether using nukes in WW II was
terrorism. It wasn't. (I again say shame on you for even suggesting it was).
I just ran across this:
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/weekly/aa100801a.htm
and it has some food for thought. I skimmed it quickly so I'm just as likely
to repudiate it later as agree 100%, but on first glance I think I agree
with the author's conclusion: using nukes at this particular point in this
particular war would not be using the most effective weapon for the job.
I do not think I see any likely confluence of events that would make them
the most effective tool but I am not willing to rule out some scenario, far
fetched though it might seem at this remove, in which this war could unfold
in a way where they would become so.
So the answer to your question is yes, if some bizarre combination of
circumstances meant they were the best way to win. That, by the way, isn't
just a mere "Saddam launched a nuke first", it has to be a lot more specific
a circumstance than that, as I suspect even if he did do that, conventional
force would be a better tool for the job. Screwdrivers are usually better at
disassembly than hammers if you want to use the parts for anything else
later, even if hammers do feel better while engaged. But feeling better
isn't what this is about, it's not about revenge or even retaliation, it's
about prevention.
But you should not be surprised to learn I am willing to go nuclear in
extreme circumstances, I was never a proponent of disarmament or nuclear
free zones or any of that folderol, and while we were under MAD doctrine, I
would have been willing to see them used in response if we had been
attacked. Regrettably, of course, but willing.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) I don't think it's shameful for people to have differing opinions, so I guess we differ on that as well 8?) (...) No, no real surprise 8?) Our opinions diverge again. So be it. And I'd add that as far as the perpetrators of Sep 11 go, they (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) My view, after reading your link and a few other things, is that I cannot see any situation where a mass-destruction device such as those used over Japan would be the most effective weapon. Well, OK, maybe if there was a (very) large area (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) So I ask again, why not use the same weapons now? Are we not currently at war with a fanatical, evil emp^H^H^H group (or groups), and need to win? Is it not appropriate to use those weapons to win this war? Why / why not? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
