Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:12:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1268 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > It won't get to that point.
> > I remember Ronald Reagan making a speech about the Empire of Evil (then, the
> > USSR), which had WoMD and could try to launch them anytime, so he proposed
> > SDI. The thing is, the Soviet Union had *no intention* of starting a war:
> > even those hardliners at the Politburo *knew* that MAD was the best defense
> > for both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War!
> >
> > And that's exactly what will grant us security.
>
> What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no
> location to destroy?
Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a
loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective
insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq,
which is largely urbanized - Baghdad is a rather large city, as you may know.
> Why let Iraq get them in the first place?
Why let the Soviets, for that matter? Or the French? Or the Chinese? Or the
British? Or Israelis? Or Pakistanis? Or Indians? Or North Koreans? Or, or, or...
I'll answer: because it's impossible to avoid. Where there's a will, there's
a way. The only motive stopping many nations from getting WoMD is lack of
will! Or do you seriously doubt that either Germans and Japanese would take
more than a few months to develop Nuclear capabilities *if they wanted to*???
> I don't really want to find out what
> they may or may not do with them.
Again, I am not worried with Iraq; "the man" is a mean SOB, but he is not
insane. North Korea is a whole other issue, though: lil' Kim has had no
reference of sanity in his life that he can relate to. As once a magazine
had on its cover, North Korea is "Absurdistan" on Earth.
But I digress...
> I heard on the local news radio today that there was protests in Philadelphia
> were they had signs that said: "No war with Iraq, save the Iraqi children."
> That just strikes me as an oxy-moron.
Well, they won't become collateral damage if there is no war, that one's for
sure.
One thing that has me curious is the French stand last Friday; not the
speech itself at the UN, but something de Villepin said after in the press
conference... he's definately up to something.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no location to destroy? Why let Iraq get them in the first place? I don't really want to find out what they may or may not do with them. (...) I heard on the local news radio (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 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
|
|
|
|
