I reckon Bozo is to blame because he shot the first missile. This is common sense, and not controversial in the least. ???
Should Bingo let the missile hit its target, killing who knows how many innocent people, or try to intercept the missile and destroy it, saving many lives, but
possibly endangering others?
I was expecting the usual suspects to come in and suggest that the US would be the bad guys for actually intercepting a missile aimed at a US target. I'm rather surprised to read that you, Ann, are seemingly prepared to blame the US for destroying a missile headed for a city in the US. But that's what your Bozo and Bingo fable seems to indicate? Please tell me I've misunderstood you.
Quote:
|
I reckon Bingo is more to blame than Bozo...
|
- Ann D, post #7
Do you think it would be
more ethical to
allow a missile fired by North Korea at a city in America to hit its target, so as to avoid
possibly injuring or killing innocents with debris from the fallout?
I believe these missiles are usually destroyed over the ocean, to minimize any collateral damage. Although the oceans are full of ships, and gracious beasties who could get hurt.
This reminds me of the logic behind people who are alarmed that Israel should defend herself from attacks. Israel is the baddie, for defending herself from relentless attacks, even though all she wants to do is live in peace on a tiny strip of desert. Hamas wishes to wipe Jews off the planet. Israel has no such desire to wipe anyone off the planet. But Israel is the baddie. That's lefty-loony logic for you.
Mind boggling.