Nick- an excellent point.
I hadn't quite made the mental connection you did, thanks. (Always thought the intent of the precision-guided weapons were to ensure the destruction of the intended target. Didn't realize it was also intended to minimize "collateral damage".) -Ben > I would agree with that statement. > > In the past we learned that Nukes were not the answer, and started to > build weapons that would be able to hit precise targets. And not have to > bomb cities with nukes, napalm and other things that cause a lot of > destruction to the population. > > We target the things that pose a threat. Not civilians. Sometimes we > miss, it sucks and we don't want it to happen. But it does. > > We don't send nukes over, even though we could, it would have been much > faster if we had dropped a few nukes in the mountains of Afghanistan, > but we didn't do that. > > It is obvious by the offensive nature of some countries that if they > were to acquire a nuclear weapon, they would use it. We have them, and > have not used them in over 50 years. And we won't use them unless it is > a last resort. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: N. Steven Alleyne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:43 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: US: invasion in the Netherlands possible > > > > Um... so it's OK if WE(the US) have weapons of mass destruction? > Because > > certainly we can be trusted not to act in our own self interest... > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
