--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, > N. Korea without the > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. > Would it have been wrong > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and > ICBMs? Why is stopping > them more frightening than not stopping them? > > Dan M.
Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its response? Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no explicit threats. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? In which case it seems to me that your argument is that we should wait until _after_ New York is destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ pre-emptive war? Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
