🚀 go-pugleaf

Alastair Mayer (alastair@firewall.ihs.com) wrote:

YOU again!!! ;)

: Is your doubt level high enough that you are willing to bet your own
: life and the lives of everyone you know (and many you don't) in some
: arbitrary city (your home town, say) on that?

By taking this logic to its obvious extreme I should live in a cave 
because a big meteorite might slam into Washington (by the way, that 
would be a BAD thing <grin>).  I think our disagreement lies in our 
assessment of the likelihood of the events discussed.

: Do you walk in dangerous neighborhoods at night secure in the knowledge
: that nobody would harm you because they'd be punished by the police if
: they did?

This raises a good point.  However, I don't see the two issues as
completely related.  Ulitmately, the surety of a police response is in
question, and the bad guys know it.  In other words, I might have the
capability, through the police, to jail the nasties, but the credibility
of that threat is certainly lacking.  The point is, the bad guys believe,
with some justiofication, that they can get away with it.  They weigh the
benefit of committing the crime with the _odds_ of just getting caught. 

In the US vs DPRK, the calculus is much simpler.  In an attack with 
weapon against which BMD would be effective, they would KNOW that they 
would be "caught" (in other words, we would know who did it).  The issue 
then comes down to this: do they believe it _probable_ that we would 
retaliate?  I'm no expert on young Kim, but I doubt that he thinks we 
would not erase him (nad most of his country) from the planet.

: The world is a dangerous neighborhood.

Completely agree.

--
David Birdsey | "Don't rejoice in Victory. For while you've killed the
              |  Beast, the bitch that bore him is in heat again." 
                                                      -Bertholt Brecht
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html