[lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:08:53 -0800
I should have written December 7th, 1941.
I notice Mike is posting some old articles as arguments that we shouldn't
engage in nuclear strikes. One of them written in 2004 suggests a lot of
negotiation. A lot of negotiation has occurred since that time. No one I
know or have read is aching to attack Iran, but like McCain says, the only
thing worse than attacking Iran is an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Lawrence Helm
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:00 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
I fail to see the reasonableness of the moms/dads/little kids argument.
Applying Kant's categorical imperative to this argument, we must face the
following:
We should not retaliate against the Japanese who attacked us on December 12,
1941 because moms/dads/little kids will eventually be killed.
We should not help the British against the Germans in WWII because German
moms/dads/little kids will eventually be killed.
We should not go after Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan because
moms/dads/little kids will also be killed.
In fact something just the opposite seems to be operative. We are outraged
because they came after our moms/dads/little kids; so we retaliate.
With the doctrine of preemption, we become convinced that a nation or
paramilitary force will harm our moms/dads/little kids unless we engage in
preemption.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eric Yost
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:42 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] The Surgical Strike Option
Marlena: I imagine we'll be told they are
'surgical strikes'...but they'll be as
surgical as the ones in Iraq are/have been--and
lots of moms/dads/little kids are
going to be hurt/killed/maimed.
Eric: Despite the obvious need to debate the
ethics of the Iranians using their population as a
human shield for nuke sites, as well as the ethics
of striking versus not striking...here's some
information about the likely area:
[http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm]
Natanz--250 kms south of Tehran--is a nuclear
facility, the previously secret existence of which
was disclosed by the National Council of
Resistance of Iran (NCRI) an Iranian opposition
group in August 15, 2002.[19] Satellite imagery
made available in December 2002 indicated that
Natanz may be used as a gas centrifuge facility
for uranium enrichment.
Looking at the photo in the Telegraph article
Lawrence cited gives no clue about the population
of the area around Natanz. I was reduced to
looking on mapquest ("Find great hotel deals in
Natanz Iran!") and it showed no towns or cities
near Natanz, the closest being a place called
Mahabad, about 15 miles away. But what does
Mapquest know?
Anyone know how to find about the moms/dads/little
kids resident in Natanz? There are about 300
people working in the Bushehr Reactor site, and
probably no little children. Both appear isolated,
as opposed to the sites located in medium- and
large-size cities.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
