From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:36:47 MDT
John K. Clark:
> hagbard@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>> Justifying a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun requires your
>> audience to believe in your voodoo.
>
> If I wait until your gun is literally smoking it's too late for me,
> I'm dead. If I see you pull out a gun and point it at me I'm going
> to do my damn best to get my gun smoking before yours. Is my
> "audience" happy about that? I don't care. Am I "justified"?
> I don't care because I'm better than justified, I'm alive.
Not only that, but you're right. I, too, would pre-empt that threat with
everything I have. But when I want to do it with your money, you'll
probably need some convincing. Of course, if I'm in a position to take
your money by force, and spend it on pre-empting threats to me, then
you're screwed. But I bet you'll make a fuss about it. If I want you to
play along, to give me your money so I can protect myself, I'll have to
convince you I'm protecting you, too. I'd say "This threat to me may
materialize into a threat to you, too." I'm probably right no matter
what the circumstances are. There is a chance, however vanishingly
small, that the Teletubbies will present a threat to you in the future.
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Where's the evidence? How did I
arrive at this conclusion? If I want you to invest in my protection,
it's reasonable to give you a prospectus.
Or is my voodoo good enough?
> Today the USA has a reputation of Mr. Tough Guy
> and that might prove to be more useful.
As a deterrent?
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:45:04 MDT