[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
> I have not advocated, nor
> would I ever advocate, the mass slaughter of innocents. I _did_ say -
when
> I believed that the casualty count would be in the tens of thousands -
that
> a nuclear response would be appropriate were it identified that a
> particular government was responsible for this.
?!?!?! How is it that you think a nuclear response will not slay
masses of innocents???
1. Because large portions of the world are wilderness, and terrorist
training bases are usually in that wilderness. A tactical nuclear weapon
dropped in the mountains of Afghanistan to strike a Bin Laden base is
unlikely to kill thousands of innocents.
2. _Because I never advocated the use of nuclear weapons_. I said that
their use would be appropriate. That's a very different thing. If a
situation in which thousands of innocent American civilians have been
murdered by a foreign government (the case in which I specified the use of
nuclear weapon would be appropriate) is not one in which the use of nuclear
weapons is appropriate, then none is. I believe in deterrence. For
deterrence to work, you have to be willing to use the weapons, or it's just
a dangerous fiction.
{snip}
> If a foreign government was responsible for
> what happened, we're going to war. If a foreign government killed 5000
> American citizens and we _aren't_ supposed to go to war over that, when
the
> hell are we supposed to go to war?
And if no foreign government was behind the attacks?
regards,
christopher
I find that highly unlikely. But if that is the case, then we hunt down
the terrorists - and they will have no place to hide. We make no
distinction between those who conducted the assaults and those who shelter
them. But if no one shelters them, then they will be brought to justice
quickly and relatively easily.
Gautam
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
