RE: MORALITY: making tradeoffs (was: a topic we will not discuss)

From: Harvey Newstrom (
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 15:12:41 MDT

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> What would be the result of a policy that any attack on US
> citizens and assets automatically and without question results
> in a large smoldering hole replacing the area the attack seems
> to be based from? I would think this would have a quite strong
> deterrent effect. Of course that hold doesn't have to be so
> large as to include too many innocents. But it does have to be
> large enough and guaranteed enough to be a real deterrent.

My two comments:

I am currently working in Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh launched a
terrorist attack against the government here a few years ago. Should we
nuke Oklahoma City now? Somehow, I don't see this policy being implemented
if it involves nuking innocent Americans.

Secondly, deterrent effects of death does not deter suicide bombers and
martyrs. They want to die for their cause. It would be a benefit to them
if they would die as the result of such an attack. Your "deterrent" is not
punishment, but is giving the death-seeker exactly what they seek.

Harvey Newstrom <> <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:51 MDT