Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 04:59:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> 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 don't think it's shameful for people to have differing opinions, so I
guess we differ on that as well 8?)
> I just ran across this:
>
> http://uspolitics.about.com/library/weekly/aa100801a.htm
Thanks for the link. It'll take some time to get through it.
> 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.
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 probably
think the weapons they used were very effective for the result they wanted
to achieve. Each to their own.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) 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: (URL) it has some food for thought. I skimmed it quickly so I'm just (...) (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
|
|
|
|
