On 1 July 2014 00:38, spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is >>> that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite >>> badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing >>> violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not >>> assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even >>> work. So, if one fights, why hold back? >> >> > Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet >> uninhabitable? >> > Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I > suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? > > (I assume that the above comment is intended as a reply to my comment above, which was a reply to the comment above that...) If so, the original question was "if one fights, why hold back?" to which I replied that not holding back might destroy the planet. To which spudboy100 says he "somehow does remember MAD" - I don't honestly see the connection with my comment. MAD is posturing, the end result of which is NOT to have a war. But the original question was IF we had a war, THEN why hold back? Which I thought I answered quite sensibly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
