Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 01:39:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
488 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 occupied by hostile military forces & no civilians.
However, there are other forms of muclear weapon, which are able to target much
more locally, and I see no reason not to use these in place of conventional
weapons, if they're deemed more effective, and their resulting destruction is
limited to military targets.
ROSCO
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
