\ *If* there is anything as a just war - which
> I don't say the 1967 war was - then it makes sense to use all valid ways
> to make it an easier win.
>
> A hypothetical example: imagine that the USSR and the USA were
> *almost* in a Global Termonuclear War. Then, the USSR strikes
> an attack against Washington and kills the USA president, and the
> USA (partially) surrenders (say, the USA gives South America to
> the USSR). This day becomes known in the USSR as "the Victory
> Day", and, as expected, it's celebrated with lots of vodka. So the
> USA intelligence learns that even the nuke-controllers consume
> half their yearly quota of vodka during this day. Wouldn't it be
> brilliant to launch a nuclear attack against the USSR on this day?
>
>But in fact most countries even in war follow certain rules. Attacking when every one
>is drunk celebrating is one thing; attacking on a solemn holy day is another. There
>are lines that are drawn even in war and this was over that line. I have stayed out
>of most of this debate but I think it is important to understand war for what it is
>and what it is not. It the destruction of individuals not of your tribe for the
>advantage of your tribe. But it is not total destruction. I think rules exist
>precisely because war is part of our species history and our social structure. Wars
>come and go and if there are no rules than life becomes intolerable because the next
>war is more attrocious.
