You have a point, but let me ask you this question -- do you think we have shown restraint in using the nuclear weapon since we used it one time and have studied over and over again the devastating results? Would other emerging societies exercise the same restraint?
OBTW, you need to type slower, I'm still trying to decipher s.l.o.w.l.y... <g> v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:13 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] 3,000 centrifuges in Iran? On Feb 14, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Wolfe, Stephen S Civ USAF AMC 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: > I don't understand the analogy, are we about to induce the loss of 3-5 > million lives due to conventional warfare in the next couple of > months? OK, let my try typing more s.l.o.w.l.y. .... ;-) Why is it OK for us to stockpile nuclear weapons? There are two main reasons that we feel justify it: the deterrence factor (MAD), and, in the case of their use in WWII, to avoid even greater losses in a protracted conventional war. The question is: if these are valid reasons for the US to have/use such weapons, why are they not valid reasons for Country X to have/use such weapons? -- Ed Leafe [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
