At 12:29 PM 9/18/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>As a civilised nation, the proper way with dealing with that would be the
>procedure I mentioned earlier (find the terrorists, arrest them, put them on
>trial, convict them). If you cannot actually catch the criminals (or have
>them handed over by whatever country harbours them), you will have to start
>a war against that country in order to catch the terrorists.
>
>This is basically a cost-benefit analysis: is the damage done (both in
>people killed, and in damage to infrastructure) high enough to validate
>going to war? Is the damage high enough to spend huge amounts of money on a
>military action, and risk the lives of your own troops?
Okaaaay! Now we are getting somewhere. (It was very clever of you to
use my three favorite words: "cost-benefit analysis." :)
So, if I understand you correctly, the United States *might* have to go to
war over this, if the United States decides that:
P = Probability of future successfull terrorist attacks
D = Likely Total Damages (people, infrastructure, and psychological damage)
from future successful terrorist attacks
C = Total cost of going to war (money, American lives, allied lives,
innocent civilian casualties, etc.)
and that
P * D > C
Correct?
Moreover, if the USA decideds that P * D > C, then this war would be
justified? Right?
Question, however, even if the above war is justified, would you consider
it a war of self-defence or a war of aggression?
I think we're actually on the same page here - if not, let me know.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
