Tranquility
Well-Known Member
IF there was a chemical attack;
and IF it was Syrians killing Syrians with it;
should the U.S. do something or nothing?
While I'm not a libertarian, I am reticent to any foreign military engagement that is not under a declaration of war that we will prosecute until victory or defeat. Yet, the world scares me in that it seems closer and closer that a person in a tiny lab can make something that can kill lots of people. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are problematical not because they kill more dead than a bullet, but because they can kill so broadly and indiscriminately. Civilian populations are the target (aka counter value) rather than collateral to a military target (aka counter force).
and IF it was Syrians killing Syrians with it;
should the U.S. do something or nothing?
While I'm not a libertarian, I am reticent to any foreign military engagement that is not under a declaration of war that we will prosecute until victory or defeat. Yet, the world scares me in that it seems closer and closer that a person in a tiny lab can make something that can kill lots of people. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are problematical not because they kill more dead than a bullet, but because they can kill so broadly and indiscriminately. Civilian populations are the target (aka counter value) rather than collateral to a military target (aka counter force).