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 American.
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. Jon Mark Gregson wrote: > > > I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a > > carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use > > nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of > > our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when that event occurs. > > 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: email@example.com 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! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================