On the topic of WMD's

Havelock

Why oh why is america (the state, not the people) so ravidly anti-WMD's when it is them-selfs the largest producer of them and has the largest stockpile of every type? Would it be they could fear the thought of actual rivials to their world stage? Nations they couldn't currupt or buy or assainate a pro-american leader into power, with the ability to inform america where it could put its "higher moral standards" and resourse expoltion? Just a thought.

SkepticOne

Their own stockpiled WMDs don't present a threat to them. Other countries' WMDs may present a threat so they are against them. It may not necessarily be a direct threat, but a country may use WMDs in a way that are not consistant with US interests.

Sparks

More succintly, the mugger rarely complains about his own gun.

but a country may use WMDs in a way that are not consistant with US interests.

In other words, you're allowed the weapons if you're a US ally or too big to tangle with..

Havelock

Right I am starting to learn that I can't tone of voice my questions in type. I wasn't asking, I was pointing out, I wished to have a little discussion about american hyporacies. Thought their approach to "disarming" the world of WMD's would be a good starting point. I future will phrase questions better.

Havelock, you're right, it would be a good step. but the US is too paranoid to reduce their current stocks. unfortuently

vorbis

because the US is far less likely to use them than say a terrorist group or a dictator.

Havelock

Paranoid or planning? If no one else ends up keeping them, what to stop them using them? Scary thought, non?

SkepticOne

I suppose one might call it hypocritical from the point of view of someone looking from the outside. How can they talk in moral tones about WMDs in other countries while ignoring their own?

However, from their point of view, there is less of a problem with this. The US is "good" and those countries or groups potentially targetting the US or its people are "evil". This is a slight exageration, and there are those within the US who don't go along with it, but it is essentially the position a president will always take. It would be bizarre otherwise.

This sort of hypocracy is intrinsic in the language of heads of state. I can't think off hand of many examples where the leaders of a country have sacrificed substantial interests of their own countries for the sake of the greater good.

Ireland is a small nation with no military power and that means it must seek compromises in everything it does on the world stage, but this does not mean it is less hypocritical than the US.

because the US is far less likely to use them than say a terrorist group or a dictator.

I don't see it that way. Based upon the circumstances the US will use WMD's should they decide that the case warrants it. it will be totally up their own perception. I don't see that their perception is any better than any other nation including nations ruled under a dictator.

As for the terrorist group, i agree, the US is less likely to use WMD's than them. However, thats only because they can draw upon the might of the conventional arsenal. Consider when there was alot of trouble brewing in N.korea, there was talk that N.Korea could launch a huge artillery strike against S.Korea. This is destruction on the broad scale without the use of WMD's. The US has ALOT more weapons to draw upon than N.Korea.

Just because the US is less likely to use them, than terrorists, is not an excuse for them continuing producing and researching WMD's.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
[BIt may not necessarily be a direct threat, but a country may use WMDs in a way that are not consistant with US interests. [/B]

As a matter of interest, can anyone think of a scenario where use of WMDs would be in the US interests?

I mean seriously guys...the next time a WMD is genuinely used as a weapon of Mass Destruction (as opposed to saying that a biological agent is a WMD, so sending someone an envelope of anthrax is use of a WMD), do you relaly think it will be in anyone's interest?

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of interest, can anyone think of a scenario where use of WMDs would be in the US interests?

Well, when Iraq used nerve gas against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, it could be argued that this was, at the time, consistant with US interests, since Iran at that time was considered more of a threat than Iraq.

But, yes, generally use of WMDs by anyone other than the US would naturally be considered problematical by the US.

Obviously, when they dropped the nukes on Japan, this was considered by them to be in their interests at the time.

Victor

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Their own stockpiled WMDs don't present a threat to them.

Am i right is saying that Bush said "Any country with WMD is a threat to the USA". Does this include (a) the UK (b) the USA?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Victor
Am i right is saying that Bush said "Any country with WMD is a threat to the USA". Does this include (a) the UK (b) the USA?

Doubt it, somehow. Particularly (b) the USA.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of interest, can anyone think of a scenario where use of WMDs would be in the US interests?

American policy is to use WMDs in the following circumstances. Retaliation for the use of WMDs on the USA or it's allies or in the event that the USA or it's allies were at risk of being defeated in a "vital" area (Vietnam wasn't "vital").

bonkey

Obviously I worded my post wrongly....

I thought it was clear from the point I was quoting that I was talking about other nations using WMDs.

I am also not talking about events which happened in WW2 or in the Cold War. I am talking about today, and the realistically envisagable future.

In other words, I'm not talking about "well, if such-n-such became a US-rivalling power, and we returned to a Cold War". I'm talking about the world today. Is there any conceivable situation where someone deploying a WMD would be in the US interests?

Basically, I think SkepticOne is overstating his case somewhat. I dont think that the US is worried someone may use WMDs in a manner "contrary to US interests", but rather that someone may use them at all......

jc

Originally posted by klaz
I don't see it that way. Based upon the circumstances the US will use WMD's should they decide that the case warrants it. it will be totally up their own perception. I don't see that their perception is any better than any other nation including nations ruled under a dictator.

My own view on that would be formed from , what happened during the cold war.
If ever there ever was a time when U.S interests were threatened it was in the 40 years after WW2 and they didn't use nuclear weapons.
They even diplomatically avoided them during the cuban missile crisis.
Their record at least on nuclear attacks( the foremost wmd ) is clear.
The problem is you cannot uninvent a nuclear weapon.
Once a country has them, , thats it, they've got a deterrent against attack from whatever other country, and therefore can extend their influence in whatever way they see fit without fear of military attack.
It's Extremely unlikely that any country would use them, as that would mean immenent distruction for them in the en sue-ing retalliation.
Thats why Kim can sit smiling in the DPNK , he's no fool, he's not going to strike for the certain knowledge that something a tad more dangerous than a boomarang would be making it's way back.
That would be the end of him, and he wouldn't want that.
mm

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Obviously I worded my post wrongly....

I thought it was clear from the point I was quoting that I was talking about other nations using WMDs.

I am also not talking about events which happened in WW2 or in the Cold War. I am talking about today, and the realistically envisagable future.

In other words, I'm not talking about "well, if such-n-such became a US-rivalling power, and we returned to a Cold War". I'm talking about the world today. Is there any conceivable situation where someone deploying a WMD would be in the US interests?

Basically, I think SkepticOne is overstating his case somewhat. I dont think that the US is worried someone may use WMDs in a manner "contrary to US interests", but rather that someone may use them at all......

jc

The situation you are talking about is a hypothetical situation, i.e.

As a matter of interest, can anyone think of a scenario where use of WMDs would be in the US interests?

so lets hypothesise. Lets say that the UK came in for an attack on the scale of 9/11. The UK find irrevocable proof that terrorists backup by the Korean Government were responsible. It get'ds to the stage where diplomacacy fails and a second attack takes place on the US, again by the Koreans. If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US. There are a number of situations where the use of WMD on nations 'not friendly' to the US would be of benifit to the US. How could there not be?

Hobart

Originally posted by Man
My own view on that would be formed from , what happened during the cold war.
If ever there ever was a time when U.S interests were threatened it was in the 40 years after WW2 and they didn't use nuclear weapons.

More of an example of Brinkmanship than restraint IMO. The percieved enemy of the US at that time was 'communism' and the main comunists were USSR and China. The US could not have used a WMD on either country without starting a nucleur war, and we all can probably guess the result of that.

They even diplomatically avoided them during the cuban missile crisis.

Again Brinkmanship. Nothing to do with restraint. Remember when the Cuban missle crisis was taking place, it was eventually the a brilliant act of diplomacy in the UN which stopped it and not necessarily the threat of a nucleur war.

Their record at least on nuclear attacks( the foremost wmd ) is clear.

If you mean that they will use them on defenceless ppl well then I would agree with you.

The problem is you cannot uninvent a nuclear weapon.
Once a country has them,

they can de-commission them. Just because they are Nucleur does not mean they have to be a weapon.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US.

Yes...I can see now how provoking the NK into a nuclear exchange with a nation it doesnt have the range to reach would be a good thing for the US.

After all....its not like the NK wouldnt possibly strike back at SK, or the US. China would definitely not back up their allies...if not militarily then in other ways. They'd never allow it to colour their relations with the nations who attacked their allies...nations who are desperately trying to increase their toe-hold in China's economy.

Dead right....all of those risks are completely in the US interests.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes...I can see now how provoking the NK into a nuclear exchange with a nation it doesnt have the range to reach would be a good thing for the US.

After all....its not like the NK wouldnt possibly strike back at SK, or the US. China would definitely not back up their allies...if not militarily then in other ways. They'd never allow it to colour their relations with the nations who attacked their allies...nations who are desperately trying to increase their toe-hold in China's economy.

Dead right....all of those risks are completely in the US interests.

jc

I'm glad you agree with me then.

How would a UK attack on NK provoke an attack on SK? I used a hypotectical scenario which did not mention the US attacking any country. Why would NK attack SK after an attack by the British? It does not make sense???

Oh. And on your other point. China needs US investment as much as the US needs to invest in China. Again why would a British attack on NK affect the US in any way militarily or trade wise?

Originally posted by Hobart
they can de-commission them. Just because they are Nucleur does not mean they have to be a weapon.

Ah, but, we all know how hard it is to get agreement on de-commissioning;) , those weapons detterent value , dampening that prospect almost altogether.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
How would a UK attack on NK provoke an attack on SK? I used a hypotectical scenario which did not mention the US attacking any country. Why would NK attack SK after an attack by the British? It does not make sense???

It makes about as much sense as your hypothetical "the Brits go rogue and start using nuclear weapons for no real reason other than one conventional attack on them ". If nothing else, such behaviour by a "stable" western nation would not be in the US interests, as the impact the ensuing uncertainty would have on the global economy (and by extension, the US economy) would be devestating.

Leave out the NK attacking the SK if you want, I only included that because the proximity of the border to Seoul and its resultant indefensibility is generally listed as the key reason why the US would never attack NK - that the NK would use SK as a hostage, and the generally-espoused opinion of the experts is that the NK wouldnt bluff. It would strike first, and then say "now back off, or theres more where that came from".

As for China needing US investment...it depends what you mean by "need". If it wants to modernise itself and become a world player, then yes, it most certainly does need US investment.

On the other hand, if it decides that getting involved with those loony democratic nations who go loosing nukes at their neighbours in retaliation to conventional attacks (your scenario), then it might decide to go back to its isolationist ways and give up on being friendly to the rest of the world. Of all the nations in the world, it is one that would be the least affected by isolationism, given how recently it is that it has broken from such a practice.

Again why would a British attack on NK affect the US in any way militarily or trade wise?

Well, by that logic, a UK attack could not be in the US interests. To be so, it would have to affect them in some way, wouldnt it

Also, your given example had a second 9/11 happening to the UK. Then a third...happening to the US for a second time, and this is what prompted a UK response.

If you want to argue that the actions of the UK and US are not linked, then why are you basing the entire hypothetical situation on the Brits responding with a WMD to a conventional attack on the US?

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Obviously I worded my post wrongly....

Do you mean where the use of WMD would be positively beneficial to US interests as opposed to maintaining a status quo stalling a change in the status quo.

Scenario 1

Let us say a Palestinian faction (with a support base in Libya, that is tolerated by the Libyan government) manages to carry out a "spectacular" in Israel in which several hundred (or thousand) people are killed (without the foreknowledge of the Libyan government). Israel retaliates with sustained air strikes and mounts a "temporary" airborne invasion of a remote town in eastern Libya, where the Palestinian faction is based. This invasion cuts off Colonel Qadhafi in Eastern Libya.

Badly out-manoeuvred, the Libyan government uses nerve gas against the lightly armed and protected paratroops. Many of the paratroopers and several thousand civilians are killed or incapacitated by the gas attack, which brings international condemnation.

Israel uses the two attacks as a reason to topple the Libyan regime.

This would be in the interests of the Americans as American oil companies could re-enter the Libyan oil and trade market.

Scenario 2

Osama bin Laden is detected (interception of a satellite telephone call) aboard an aircraft refuelling on a tiny island in the southern Indian Ocean. There are no American forces for 2,000 miles.

The Americans launch a ballistic missile from a submarine in the western Pacific Ocean, arriving on the island 15 minutes later, just as the aircraft is preparing to take off. The aircraft and its occupants are destroyed as are the 97 local inhabitants.

The American reach resolution after the events of September 11th and Afghanistan. The psychological boost transforms into an economic boost.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
It makes about as much sense as your hypothetical "the Brits go rogue and start using nuclear weapons for no real reason other than one conventional attack on them ". If nothing else, such behaviour by a "stable" western nation would not be in the US interests, as the impact the ensuing uncertainty would have on the global economy (and by extension, the US economy) would be devestating.

So you are saying that it makes no sense. Or. It makes total sense. Or what? It is a hypothetical situation. So what do you disagree about? We could hypothesise for the next couple of weeks if you want but you asked for an example and I gave one. It did not involve the US in any agreesive way but it would have benifited the US by striking one of its' 'Axis of evil' enimies.

Leave out the NK attacking the SK if you want, I only included that because the proximity of the border to Seoul and its resultant indefensibility is generally listed as the key reason why the US would never attack NK - that the NK would use SK as a hostage, and the generally-espoused opinion of the experts is that the NK wouldnt bluff. It would strike first, and then say "now back off, or theres more where that came from".

I thought we were talking about an attack by another country and not the US? The fact that, as is demonstrated in your quote above, the NK would hold hostage the SK as an example to the west (and I am assuming not just the US) would have FA got to do with the US if the UK nuked them? Enlighten me if I am wrong.

As for China needing US investment...it depends what you mean by "need". If it wants to modernise itself and become a world player, then yes, it most certainly does need US investment.

Yes I do.

On the other hand, if it decides that getting involved with those loony democratic nations who go loosing nukes at their neighbours in retaliation to conventional attacks (your scenario),

Where???

then it might decide to go back to its isolationist ways and give up on being friendly to the rest of the world. Of all the nations in the world, it is one that would be the least affected by isolationism, given how recently it is that it has broken from such a practice.

What practice? The fact is that China has been dealing with western governments and companies as a communist state for years. So the fact that it would be isolated is a myth. A billion and odd ppl have a great way of of creating a market. In fact Europe and the US have been happy to deal with so-called 'isolated' regimes for years Iraq and NK for example.

Well, by that logic, a UK attack could not be in the US interests. To be so, it would have to affect them in some way, wouldnt it

Yes it would. A positive way.

Also, your given example had a second 9/11 happening to the UK. Then a third...happening to the US for a second time, and this is what prompted a UK response.

If you want to argue that the actions of the UK and US are not linked, then why are you basing the entire hypothetical situation on the Brits responding with a WMD to a conventional attack on the US?

jc

I'm not.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
It is a hypothetical situation. So what do you disagree about?

Hobart...you offered a scenario. I offered an outcome from that scenario. You rubbished my outcome on the notion that my hypothetical outcome made no sense. I pointed out that it made as much sense as your original situation....which you have once again just defended on "hey, its only hypothetical". Sure it is...but if it doesnt logically prove your point its a bit useless. You set up the scenario...I am showing why the net outcome would not be in the US interest.

I thought we were talking about an attack by another country and not the US?

Are you even reading what I wrote? Not only did I not suggest that the US attack anyone, but the point that you are having difficulties with began with leave out NK attacking SK if you want. If you are having difficulties understanding my point, then leave it out like I suggested - its entirely incidental to my main argument.

The fact that, as is demonstrated in your quote above, the NK would hold hostage the SK as an example to the west (and I am assuming not just the US) would have FA got to do with the US if the UK nuked them? Enlighten me if I am wrong.

Again, read the bit about dropping my suggestion that the NK attacks the SK.

Then read the bit about global economic impacts....the bit you've ignored so far.....the bit that actually makes the point as to why this would not be in the US interests. Interestingly, its the same base logic that would play in the two other scenarios offered.

The economic impact of anyone dropping a nuke in the Middle East (for example) would be horrendous.

On the other hand, if it decides that getting involved with those loony democratic nations who go loosing nukes at their neighbours in retaliation to conventional attacks (your scenario),

Where???

Well...lets see...North Korea are China's neighbours. The British ( a democratic nation ) have just responded to a conventional attack on another nation with a nuclear response - something most people would consider not just loony but stark raving mad.

So now all remains is whether or not the Chinese would decide that this was an isolated act or not.

You suggested the UK nuke NK in retaliation to a conventional attack on the US. I have asked if it was a typo, and you have said not.

So your situation is that the NK attacks the US. The UK then nukes the NK in retaliation, using nuclear weapons. The only nukes the UK possesses come from the US. You're telling me that no-one is going to possibly think there might just be a link there, and the US would also catch some of the fallout (if you excuse the pun).

Somehow I get the impression that all of these scenarios offered to date assume that that setting off a nuke wouldnt have reprecussions of its own...that everyone would just look at it and go "gosh, thats a big explosion" and leave it at that? So its only a question of engineering a situation that would be to the US interest, then replacing conventional munitions with WMDs in the picture, and hey...its still in the US interest.

The use of WMDs in a conflict - and again, I qualified this at the start (no envelopes of anthrax please) would have devestating effects on international relations and international economics in general. This is not to the US' advantage.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Hobart...you offered a scenario. I offered an outcome from that scenario. You rubbished my outcome on the notion that my hypothetical outcome made no sense. I pointed out that it made as much sense as your original situation....which you have once again just defended on "hey, its only hypothetical". Sure it is...but if it doesnt logically prove your point its a bit useless. You set up the scenario...I am showing why the net outcome would not be in the US interest.

A hypotetical situation can have numerous outcomes. All logical. There is no 1 outcome that can the only outcome in this situation.

Are you even reading what I wrote? Not only did I not suggest that the US attack anyone, but the point that you are having difficulties with began with leave out NK attacking SK if you want. If you are having difficulties understanding my point, then leave it out like I suggested - its entirely incidental to my main argument.

I can see cleraly what you are saying. For example not only did you say that NK would attack SK in this situation but you also suggested that they would attack the US. I am asking why would they do that if the UK nuked them? And ok we will leave out the possibility of the NK attacking SK for no reason at all.

Again, read the bit about dropping my suggestion that the NK attacks the SK.

Then read the bit about global economic impacts....the bit you've ignored so far.....the bit that actually makes the point as to why this would not be in the US interests. Interestingly, its the same base logic that would play in the two other scenarios offered.

I fail to see why or how the destruction of an non-entity from an economic or militarily strategic perspective would have any impact on the global economy. I just cant see it anywhere? So I will supplement my hypotetical situation with the footnote that there is 0(zero) impact on the Global economy.

The economic impact of anyone dropping a nuke in the Middle East (for example) would be horrendous.

Yes it would. But lets not complivcate this by bringing the Middle East in it. Chalk and Cheese from a global perspective.

Well...lets see...North Korea are China's neighbours. The British ( a democratic nation ) have just responded to a conventional attack on another nation with a nuclear response - something most people would consider not just loony but stark raving mad.

Yes they are neighbours. Yes the Brits are a democratic nation. Yes it would be mad.

So now all remains is whether or not the Chinese would decide that this was an isolated act or not.

Go on.

You suggested the UK nuke NK in retaliation to a conventional attack on the US. I have asked if it was a typo, and you have said not.

Ahhhhhhh. Nearly there. But not quite. Now who's not reading the posts. I suggested nothing of the sort. Re-read my original post and then come back.

So your situation is that the NK attacks the US. The UK then nukes the NK in retaliation, using nuclear weapons. The only nukes the UK possesses come from the US. You're telling me that no-one is going to possibly think there might just be a link there, and the US would also catch some of the fallout (if you excuse the pun).

No.No.No (on the Nukes). Pun excused.

The use of WMDs in a conflict - and again, I qualified this at the start (no envelopes of anthrax please) would have devestating effects on international relations and international economics in general. This is not to the US' advantage.

jc

I disagree on the point of economics of your argument.

Lemming

Hobart, you're not listening to the economic impact points being made. As pointed out, the use of a WMD anywhere would have economic repercussions for one simple reason.

In times of uncertainty, people hold onto their money and stop spending/investing.

Hobart

Originally posted by Lemming
Hobart, you're not listening to the economic impact points being made. As pointed out, the use of a WMD anywhere would have economic repercussions for one simple reason.

In times of uncertainty, people hold onto their money and stop spending/investing.

Lemming I am (re-read my post).

Lemming

You're going to stand there and tell me that the use of a Nuke somewhere isn't going to make capital markets go into an EXTREMMMMELY nervous state? Irrespective of whether or not the victim was a non-entity or not?

Hobart

Originally posted by Lemming
You're going to stand there and tell me that the use of a Nuke somewhere isn't going to make capital markets go into an EXTREMMMMELY nervous state? Irrespective of whether or not the victim was a non-entity or not?

No I am not saying that. But at the same time I do not want to drag this subject off on a completely different tangent and get into the whole area of : (I say)well it will for 6 month's (You say) How do you know 6 months? (I say) based on the current economic data blah blah blah yada yada yada yada.

So let me say this once. YES. It will have an impact. and No I do not know for how long. And YES I <

---

ME, IMO, believe that in this hypotetical situation the economic impact of nuking a non-entity will have a minimal impact on the Global economy. OK.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Now who's not reading the posts. I suggested nothing of the sort. Re-read my original post and then come back.

OK - here's your original post, dissected into smaller pieces to make sure we dont get lost :

Lets say that the UK came in for an attack on the scale of 9/11.

So...we have the UK getting hit by a 9/11-scale attack.....like I said.

It get'ds to the stage where diplomacacy fails and a second attack takes place on the US, again by the Koreans.

Now, we have the North Koreans attacking the United States in a second attack.

If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US.

Now we have the UK retaliating after the attack on the US.

So...the UK is retaliating subsequent to an attack on the US, and yet you think that the NK won't see the two nations as being somehow connected?

See - I did read your post. I even asked if the second attack being on the US was a typo and you clarified that it wasnt. So exactly what part am I not interpreting correctly here?

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
OK - here's your original post, dissected into smaller pieces to make sure we dont get lost :

Lets say that the UK came in for an attack on the scale of 9/11.

So...we have the UK getting hit by a 9/11-scale attack.....like I said.

It get'ds to the stage where diplomacacy fails and a second attack takes place on the US, again by the Koreans.

Now, we have the North Koreans attacking the United States in a second attack.

If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US.

Now we have the UK retaliating after the attack on the US.

So...the UK is retaliating subsequent to an attack on the US, and yet you think that the NK won't see the two nations as being somehow connected?

See - I did read your post. I even asked if the second attack being on the US was a typo and you clarified that it wasnt. So exactly what part am I not interpreting correctly here?

jc

But you said

You suggested the UK nuke NK in retaliation to a conventional attack on the US

I never said that it was in retaliation for the attack on the US you did. In my scenario the UK attacked NK because of the attack on the scale of 9/11. I supplemented that point by saying that the same terrorists attaced the US. I also did not say that the attack on the US would be on the scale of 9/11. They are the parts you got wrong(and the bit about the UK only having Nukes supplied by the US???).

But for the purposes of this argument you can forget the scenario where the US also gets attacked. Lets just say that the terrorists did not attack the US also but only attacked the UK. TBH I think that Victor gives 2 far better examples then I did.

Lemming

Lads, lets cut the hypothetical masturbatory fantasies, because .... that's exactly what they are.

lets just agree on the following:

1. WMDs are bad
2. Setting a WMD off anywhere is not to anyone's benefit (in the medium/long run)
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Victor

Originally posted by Lemming
1. WMDs are bad

In isolation yes, in terms of MAD they are "good".

Originally posted by Lemming
2. Setting a WMD off anywhere is not to anyone's benefit (in the medium/long run)

It's just like war, no one benefits directly from war (individual speculators / profiteers might, but no country / society / economy does), however they may benefit from the end result of war.

Originally posted by Lemming
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Indeed, it is a matter of how far into fantasy you go.

Dale Brown wrote a book ("Storming Heaven"?) several years ago suggesting September 11th style attacks on airports. Yet people expressed absolute disbelief that anyone thought up the September 11th attacks. And while the attacks were audacious (and very wrong), they weren't unthinkable "fantasy".

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Well, most modern planning in all spheres revolves around the use hypothesis.

The problem is distinguishing between a realistically possibly hypothetical situation, and one which is more removed from reality - which is usually done by determining whether or not a realistic set of events could lead us from where we are now, to where the hypothesis begins.

jc