Chat/Comment thread

You must be kidding!Can you think of one productive thing Iran will do with a bunch of nukes?And please consider in your answer what Iran has bragged it would do if it had such weapons.

I didn't object to them killing him.I objected to you saying that it wasn't an "ordered killing", and to you calling it "a strike on a battlefield" as though there was anyone else at all involved except him and his entourage and as if he just got hit by a stray round in all the confusion.What happened was: they decided to kill him, found out exactly where he was, and shot a couple of missiles directly at him. Then they said "hooray, we killed him". It's not like he just happened to be standing where they were shooting their missiles and they said: "What, we killed who now? Well there's a stroke of luck!"

It's a distinction without a difference. If the President orders an airstrike on an al-Qaeda training camp, they don't wait for people to clear out of it - indeed, killing the people who are training there is as much an objective as destroying the assets at the camp itself. Is that an "ordered killing"? If you fire an air-to-air missile at another airplane, the goal is not so much to destroy the easily-replaced airplane but to kill the expensively-trained pilot; is that also an "ordered killing"?How about snipers? While its not uncommon for military snipers to fire in an anti-materiel capacity, it's more common for them to set their sights on enemy officers. Is that an "ordered killing" as well? If it is, it's never been understood to be something outside of the appropriate realm of military conduct.The point of the strike was to take out Anwar al-Awlaki's capabilities to harm US citizens. As such, the targets were his resources, his vehicles, his associates, and his own person, since killing him would certainly neutralize him as a threat.I think you're displaying a certain naivete about what soldiers actually do. The reason they carry guns is to carry out targeted killings of the soldiers on the other side. Combat isn't just a thing where soldiers face each other and then spray bullets around, hoping that one side will get nervous and leave. They're taking aim and firing at each other with the intent to kill. Soldiers try to kill each other, it's not something new.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Why is Iran more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other nation that has nuclear weapons?

I can't think of one productive thing that the US could do with a bunch of nukes.The US has not just bragged, it has actually used nuclear weapons.

I don't think anyone shoudl have nuclear weapons, I agree with youthat far, but saying they should not be allowed to get them? How do you propose to stop them, if not by force of war? And if it does come to war, can we afford it?And all of this does nothing to change the hypocricy of the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another country telling a third country they can't have them because they might use them.As for the Strait of Hormuz, the fact that the strait is between multiple countries, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to close it. If the land on the other side of the strait was part of Iran, it would be their sovereign waters, and I might not like them closing it, but they would have the right to do so. Much like the US has the right to close the Mississippi, or the Erie Canal...but not the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Bering Strait. Unfortunately, Iran has shwon that the "not killing" routeis not one that will work. At best, it will only delay them because they are bound and determiend to get them, and considering their biggest enemies are the US and Israel, both of whom have nukes, I can't really blame them.As for the killing route, the problem comes from the fact that more often than not, the people who die are not the ones responsible for the policy nor for the process. We might kill thousands of soldiers and citizens for every military commander or lead scientist...and even the lead scientists aren't necessarily free to decide their own work.And then, when the dust clears, what's to stop the next group of leaders to decide they need nukes? The cat's out of the bag, you're never going to be able to stop a determined country from getting them, unless you're willing to commit blood and treasure in a comprehensive, indefinite occupation.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

It worked too, didn't it?

I think Iran bragged in much the same way Pakistan, India, and North Korea bragged, yet I do not think they have done anything, have they?

quote:

---

The US has not just bragged, it has actually used nuclear weapons.

---

I remember the Bush/Gore debate in 2000 when immoral simpleton Bush Jr. smirked and smiled when he talked (bragged) about Texas executions. You see, he has the lack of remorse, shame or guilt found in true sociopaths. Bush Jr. has never been unable to empathize with the pain of innocent victims, having only contempt for their weakness or distress.As I read your short reply "It worked too, didn't it?", I somehow saw/felt Bush Jr. again. The same horrific chill and disgust were unmistakable.I suppose it is remotely possible I have misread your short reply. If so, I do apologize.

Look at the historic record for the end of WWII in the Pacific. Invasion of the Japanese homeland was a very grim prospect.The bombs fulfilled their purpose, and arguably saved millions of additional lives. They were the lesser of two evils in this case.The typical irrational "anti-nuke at all costs" hysteria that developed later does not take this into consideration.But somehow that anti-nuke attitude doesn't seem to apply to petty tyrant-run countries like Iran and N. Korea.

Sorry, Rahvin and I recently did the atomic-bomb debate. As I recall with my photographic memory (right after getting a call from the president of the usa, and just before making love for the seventh time to a super model), I beat Rahvin's brains out in the debate. But I digress. I'll pass on doing another atomic bomb debate again so soon. Sorry.However, you (SIMILAR to a true sociapath) missed my main point. It was your SEEMING glibness, perhaps even sheer glee in the use of a weapon of mass destruction that I was posting about.Edited by dronester, : "sheer," that's better.

In that you would be wrong.

A million apologies.

Not particularly.

There is some dispute about whether it's this frog or whether it's some sort of fish. But it's definitely a very very small frog. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.