Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Give War a Chance

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by dbermanmd, Jul 30, 2007.

Page 3 of 3

dbermanmd New Member

Joined:

Sep 7, 2005

8,553

18

0

Location:

manhattan

Vehicle:

2006 Prius

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RAMbler @ Aug 6 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]491445[/snapback]</div>

I'll go with the textbook definition of 100% positive. That should answer questions 1 and 2.

To answer your 3rd question which is likely something as follows: What if one is only 99% assured and does nothing about it b/c it has not met the "certainty" level but then that 1% probable outcome actually occurs?

Well, I still believe in casting out any level of doubt because similarly, what if we did strike using a 99% level of assurance and the 1% chance that it was not a threat occurs and we end up killing thousands of innocent people?

Also, when such a crisis is imminent and not 100% certain, diplomatic measures are still an option (i.e. the Cuban missile crisis). If we had bombed the crap out of Cuba and subsequently Russia when the level of assurance was very high, neither of us would likely be here today having this debate.
[/b]
Click to expand...

So, even when WMD's are in play you would want 99% certainty that the intelligence was correct before preemption?

You mention diplomacy, name the conflicts averted by diplomacy please?

#41 dbermanmd, Aug 8, 2007

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 3 of 3