I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? As far as I
know, other than some rumored clandestine close calls, the only serious
threat of using nukes occurred in the 60's in the Cuban missile showdown.
Our dear friend Castro, the same one how was recently cheered in Harlem,
demanded that the Soviet commander use the tactical nukes. He supposedly
almost did, but obviously they were not used.
This brings up an interesting point, namely, if al Qaeda gets a nuke from
some rogue country, or one of the floating Soviet nukes, and uses it, whom
would we retaliate against? My best guess is that we would not retaliate
(at least President Bush wouldn't, nor would anyone else currently likely to
occupy the Presidency).
This is one of the reasons it is so important to (1) get rid of Saddam, (2)
bring North Korea into line, (3) assist he Russians to make a major effort
to find all their nukes, (4) aggressively protect our borders, and (5)
aggressively pursue any and all international terrorist threats. We do not
have the luxury of sitting around playing peace. All of this can be done
without trampling on what both John and I consider to be inalienable rights.
I also disagree with your last statement about war. The Church stays out of
things like that. We are obligated to protect ourselves. We do not need
direction in all things. I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we
should not preemptively defend ourselves, and one has a very difficult time
comparing Nephites situations to our current situations. Yes, war is a
serious issue. But I will promise you, if there were a group of thugs in
Cary (the next town over from Apex, where I live), and they were making
plans to attack me in a manner that I could not defend against, I would
preemptively move against them. I fell sorry for anyone who would not.
Mark Gregson wrote:
> > I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take
> > carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to
> > nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds
> > our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when that event
> Once the nukes start getting tossed around it won't matter who was the
first to use them because "everyone" will be using them as just another
conventional weapon. There won't be any moral high ground, just as there is
no moral high ground right now in the use of tanks, planes, ships,
artillery, grenades, rifles and so on.
> Anyway, the US has already used nukes in war and has also threatened
further use so the precendent is set. Anyone using nukes in battle will
justify themselves on the US precedent. It won't matter if you agree with
them or not, they will use that justification. Not that justification has
much to do with anything. The nukes will kill lots of people with or
without it and the response will be extremely hard to limit. The genie came
out of the bottle in about 1939 when the US decided to work on the bomb.
> (Well, of course the moral high ground is to not wage war except as
specified by scripture and revelation.)
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!