To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19877
19876  |  19878
Subject: 
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:28:16 GMT
Viewed: 
773 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:>
Modified hypothetical:

Let a = whacky terrorist group run by a psychopath.
Let b = nuke-bearing dictatorship run by a guy who likes
       living the good life and pretty evil, but not
       plausibly insane.
Let c = big country that they both hate.

So, a and b would both like to see c crumble...so far we're agreeing.  But, if
b gives a nuke to a that is then used on c, while c is stinging at the insult,
c will utterly eradicate from this Earth all of b.  And everyone knows this.
So, b, much as he might like to see c hurt, will not give the nuke to a.

The truth is, that if Saddam provided Bin Laden with a nuke that was then
detonated in Manhattan, we cleanse the desert with nuclear hellfire and leave
it a glowing ecological disaster for 20,000 years.  It would be an attack of
unprecidented magnitude.  And we would go down in history as monsters, but we
would do it anyway because the capacity for vengence that is within our psyche
would demand it.  Hussein is no fool.

Chris

Not necessarily nukes. they know c would annihilate them for that.  however
a terrorist group *could* come up with chem or bio weapons themselves, and
therefore using them would hurt c and keep b relativily safe and a only
slightly damaged.  Also, if c used chem, bio, or nukes to retaliate c would
be portrayed as horrible monsters, no matter how many of c's civillians died
horrible deaths.

Lastly, there not being a "proven" link means nothing. if our military
intelligence was that good OBL would be long dead and the bay of pigs
invasion would have worked out nicely.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
 
(...) Something we agree on. Given the "problems" with our itelligence, why would you rather err on the side of war? Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out? Perhaps you can explain it better... -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
 
(...) Modified hypothetical: Let a = whacky terrorist group run by a psychopath. Let b = nuke-bearing dictatorship run by a guy who likes living the good life and pretty evil, but not plausibly insane. Let c = big country that they both hate. So, a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

164 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR