Originally posted by FabianFnasI rather doubt that scenario would ever play out.
One is enough, I reckon.
He who sits with the finger on the red button, whether his name is Bush or bin Ladin, doesn't matter. No teocratic leader should posess any nuclear weapons - or rather noone at all.
One is enough to destroy the world in the name of god.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou give Bin Laden an atomic bomb small enough to fit in a briefcase and you don't think he would use it? He is only one nut case out of many many of them out in Taliban land. While I firmly believe the US created its own crisis and begat the generation of ten times the number of terrorists by attacking Iraq, the point still remains, if one of those whack jobs gets ahold of a small nuke they WILL use it, of that I have no doubt. The only question will then be which city? Tel Aviv or New York City? I think it's only a matter of time.
I rather doubt that scenario would ever play out.
Originally posted by sonhouseSure, I would be scared if Osama had nuclear weapons. He is a fanatic. But why treat this as an exclusively religious issue? Have you never heard about the Cold War?
You give Bin Laden an atomic bomb small enough to fit in a briefcase and you don't think he would use it? He is only one nut case out of many many of them out in Taliban land. While I firmly believe the US created its own crisis and begat the generation of ten times the number of terrorists by attacking Iraq, the point still remains, if one of those whack j ...[text shortened]... estion will then be which city? Tel Aviv or New York City? I think it's only a matter of time.
Originally posted by Conrau Kmy post about god extends to all the figures that are unjustly used as justification for horrors.
But Sonhouse is holding Luther directly responsible not for anti-Semitic pogroms but the Peasants' War and the hundreds of thousands of deaths involved. He has not explained why Luther deserves blame here. The Peasants' War was a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, to put simply. Now just because Luther advocated anti-Semitic attacks does ...[text shortened]... nsible for the French Revolution? Was Karl Marx directly responsible for the Stalinist purges?
marx is not responsible for Stalin. in fact marx is not responsible for communism. he described an alternative to the current social structure in which few had the most wealth and power and suggested it be shifted to the masses instead. and he got stalin. who replaced one category of dictators by another. stalin is not a real communist, just a dictator.
one isn't responsible if the people listening take the message and twist it to suit their needs. one isn't responsible for the far consequences of ones actions because really how can we foresee all future ripple effects?
if one were to invent a miracle drug that makes a person completely immune to disease and then after a while only the rich are getting the drug and the poor are deliberately infected by some disease and left to die, is he responsible for their deaths
Originally posted by Conrau KI can assure you Bin Laden is treating it as a religious issue. The cold war was about political power. Bin Laden uses political power to advance his sick agenda of hate and death. At least the commies were only interested in power.
Sure, I would be scared if Osama had nuclear weapons. He is a fanatic. But why treat this as an exclusively religious issue? Have you never heard about the Cold War?
Originally posted by sonhouseI thought we were talking about a nuke capable of "destroying the world," as mentioned in your previous response to me. I agree, if that danger existed (a theocrat or any potential enemy having access to that much weaponry), drastic measures would ensue. But one suitcase bomb can't do that.
You give Bin Laden an atomic bomb small enough to fit in a briefcase and you don't think he would use it? He is only one nut case out of many many of them out in Taliban land. While I firmly believe the US created its own crisis and begat the generation of ten times the number of terrorists by attacking Iraq, the point still remains, if one of those whack j ...[text shortened]... estion will then be which city? Tel Aviv or New York City? I think it's only a matter of time.
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot destroy the world but it sure could make NYC uninhabitable. I would feel the effects even and I live 100 miles to the west.
I thought we were talking about a nuke capable of "destroying the world," as mentioned in your previous response to me. I agree, if that danger existed (a theocrat or any potential enemy having access to that much weaponry), drastic measures would ensue. But one suitcase bomb can't do that.