[Mrs. Don-o]

Mr. Hundson, the only part of your morally impassioned essay that I disagree with, is the part about nuclear weapons. It is my understanding that (with certain possible tactical exceptions) nuclear weapons are part of the larger class of weaponry (the "ABC" or "WMD" types) which are engineered to be indiscriminate: that is, they kill everything within a considerable radius of destruction, for instance everyone in a city.

This is morally comparable to knifing a family. It is a crime, and is to be condemned.

[massgopguy]

They were killed for being Jews. But the world does not condemn this as a Hate Crime.

[ml/nj]

This is morally comparable to knifing a family. It is a crime, and is to be condemned.

You need to understand that the aggressor sets the rules of engagement. The Israelis really do not want to harm people who are not a threat to them. Sometimes they even take so much care not to harm civilians that they lose some of their own. As far as I am concerned 10,000 innocent Arab deaths are of little concern so long as one innocent Israeli is spared. We had the same attitude in WWII, and in the long run it actually spared many of our enemy.

ML/NJ

[Walter Scott Hudson]

Mr. [Hudson,] the only part of your morally impassioned essay that I disagree with, is the part about nuclear weapons... [They] are engineered to be indiscriminate...

This is morally comparable to knifing a family. It is a crime, and is to be condemned.

Who's going around using nuclear weapons though? Having them and using them are two very different things. Seeking them to possess as a deterrent and seeking them to use are two very different things. I don't understand your point. Perhaps you can clarify.