Originally posted by Lokrian
So you object to even so much as the possibility of the U.S. using a nuclear bunker buster bomb to wipe out a nuclear weapons facility in a state known to harbor terrorists? Even so much as a frank military discussion of this option in a pentagon planning document is equal in your mind to flying planes into buildings loaded with civilians?
No, I'm not objecting to clear-cut cases. There's always the easy examples to trot out... the ones where you only kill known terrorists, only damage buildings that are devoted to military purposes, etcetera. What's less clear is where you drop a nuclear bomb on a city, and the initial devastation kills lots of civilians, and the fallout affects people in neutral countries.

Also, is it not reasonable to object to meta-terrorism? We object to Moslem extremists blowing things up to get attention; why not object equally to politicians playing on that to get votes?

So, with any new measure that any government brings in, I'd be asking a few questions:
* The Trident question: Do we know nothing about it except that it costs fifteen billion so it must be superb?
* The Polaris question: Will it actually do what has been promised?
* The EuroPass question: How much inconvenience will it cause to the general public?
* The TSR.2 question: Will it effectively deter?
* The Children Overboard question: Is it something that's been in the pipeline for years, but is being announced now because the election's approaching?
* The Carpet Bombing question: Will it, if used, cause widespread death/damage of people who, like the flowers of spring, have nothing to do with the case?

-> Rosuav dons an asbestos suit, preferring cancer to death by flame