Re: virus: Ethical War - Good or Bad?

Lior Golgher (efraim_g@netvision.net.il)
Sat, 18 Jan 1997 14:42:43 -0800


Kenneth Boyd wrote:
Let's discriminate between "ethical" rules and "We'd like to have
something usable afterwards" rules. The latter could be viewed as
generic education for would-be generals. The former are designed to
lose
wars, and are thus ignored by those who wish to be victorious, anyway.
---------
??? How does that relate to my post? Whether you consider Geneva
Covenant etc. as "ethical" rules or "We'd like to have something usable
afterwards" rules, how does it matter?

I find it highly annoying that Israel's "Our first response to any mass
offensive is nuclear" is an example of "We'd like to have something
usable afterwards".
---------
[Patriotism Mode ON]
Don't try to ensure a reply by opposing my state's policy. I'd always be
too busy.
[Patriotism Mode OFF]
Anyway, your claim is mostly incorrect.
When civilian population (including me :o) was bombed night-by-night for
something like three months, we did not respond at all, although we
could launch a nuclear attack on Iraq without being harmed by fallout.
And it wasn't such a wise PM to make that decision, in fact he was as
dumb as the current one.
Only a Samson Case would lead to the use of nuclear weapons - Israel's
immediate response to a non-conventional offensive which will assuredly
destory Israel will be nuclear. The U.S. is far more hot on the trigger
in this field.
Anyway, as A.C. Clarke described in a short story of his, that response
isn't so certain either, since once you're already destroyed there's no
use to destroy the enemy.

If you consider 'Our first response to any mass offensive is nuclear' as
an example of 'We'd like to have something usable afterwards', then what
isn't 'We'd like to have something usable afterwards'?

Lior.