Daisy Cutter bombs and similar conventional ordinance can strike just as hard as tactical nukes without worrying about fallout, physical or political or moral or whatever.
He's either an ignorant ass, or trying to make controversial statements to sell his book (see the "ass" in first part of sentence). L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? That's not controversialy, that's insane. When you interview him, be sure to change the name of batgap forum for that episode. C: Your very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am assuming to batshit aside... this is a slanderous misread of Harris' position by journalists which he clarifies here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 The basic upshot is that he was painting a hypothetical combination of a society that glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined with long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do have nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were in imminent danger. "Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe." Harris http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf He is not for it, he is against it. He believes the beliefs in Islam might cause it so he is against those beliefs. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. > You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran to be not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on this - avoid the danger that lies ahead. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
