The morality of nuclear retalitation.

[emzie]

BasketCase, what the US did to Japan in 1945 is outside a paradigm of MAD. Trying to apply lessons from it to the world from 1950 onwards is futile. You once again betray a stunning amount of ignorance in being completely unable to understand what a hypothetical is about, something that was a mainstay in debate club in my junior high.

I sometimes wonder if another human being, anywhere, has ever learned a single thing from your posts other than that you're, well, your user name does say it all....

 

[BasketCase]

The problem with your "winning formula," BasketCase, is that it isn't a winning formula at all.

That wasn't MY winning formula. Luiz came up with it. I was disproving HIS winning formula.

BasketCase, as usual you hijack the thread

Nope. People are just losing track of what I'm actually arguing.

Luiz sez this: country A should retaliate so that everybody else on the planet realizes nuclear strikes have consequences, thereby discouraging other nuclear strikes. I disagree; real-world history already has a case of nuclear attack NOT having consequences, yet that nuclear-attack-without-consequences has not resulted in other nuclear-attacks-without-consequences.

Luiz sez nuclear retaliation is moral for a particular reason. I disagree with that reason.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Closed for review.