While that is a very interesting technological achievment of the Chinese, it does not take away any of the value of Magellan's voyage. At that point in history the European world had no knowledge of the Chinese expedition, so Magellan made the first journey as far as they knew.
Columbus is often viewed in the same manner, that he now doesnt matter because he didn't "discover" America. Actually, he did discover America. He, and millions of Europeans, didn't know it was there, so he was the person who opened America for European colonization.
How much do you know about American policy and the real world? This is just a simple contingency plan in case something happens. This was not a declaration of unrestricted nuclear war, nor even an announcement that we are thinking about using a nuke. A statement like this is there so that we don't have to come up with one should a terrible attack ocur on Americans.
It only makes sense that if using tactical nukes on a hardened target is the only way to kill it, and it presents a direct threat to Americans, then nukes are fair game. This isn't dropping a megaton-bomb on a city, it's destroying an instrument of war.
Other people have said that we can't cross the line of nuclear-non-proliferation like this. We aren't crossing a line. The people that attack us with chemical agents will the ones crossing the line, and once it's crossed we have every right to respond in the same manner.
He didn't say to "wipe out an entire people, most of whom weren't responsible, purely for revenge." An attack using tactical nukes can be done to quickly destroy the military threats of a government, which in this theoretical case WAS responsible for tens of thousands of American civilian casualties.
A nuclear response does not have to take the form of megaton weapons blowing away cities. Nukes can be used fairly safely to neutralize bunkers and chemical/biological facilities.
Your reference to a mass-murderer like Hitler is incorrect. If the US were to drop a nuke on Beijing solely because they were communists, then this is true. A small tactical nuke strike to protect unknown-millions of Americans is not mass-murder.
The problem is that this is a civil case. A lawsuit, not a trial. The so called "double jeopardy" movie thing is not quite presented right anyways. AFAIK, Bob can't be tried for shooting John on Christmas Eve more than once, but if Bob shoots John again he can be tried for shooting him that second time. Even if it were a criminal case, Netscape could always claim that this was a different set of crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
While that is a very interesting technological achievment of the Chinese, it does not take away any of the value of Magellan's voyage. At that point in history the European world had no knowledge of the Chinese expedition, so Magellan made the first journey as far as they knew.
Columbus is often viewed in the same manner, that he now doesnt matter because he didn't "discover" America. Actually, he did discover America. He, and millions of Europeans, didn't know it was there, so he was the person who opened America for European colonization.
How much do you know about American policy and the real world? This is just a simple contingency plan in case something happens. This was not a declaration of unrestricted nuclear war, nor even an announcement that we are thinking about using a nuke. A statement like this is there so that we don't have to come up with one should a terrible attack ocur on Americans.
It only makes sense that if using tactical nukes on a hardened target is the only way to kill it, and it presents a direct threat to Americans, then nukes are fair game. This isn't dropping a megaton-bomb on a city, it's destroying an instrument of war.
Other people have said that we can't cross the line of nuclear-non-proliferation like this. We aren't crossing a line. The people that attack us with chemical agents will the ones crossing the line, and once it's crossed we have every right to respond in the same manner.
He didn't say to "wipe out an entire people, most of whom weren't responsible, purely for revenge." An attack using tactical nukes can be done to quickly destroy the military threats of a government, which in this theoretical case WAS responsible for tens of thousands of American civilian casualties.
A nuclear response does not have to take the form of megaton weapons blowing away cities. Nukes can be used fairly safely to neutralize bunkers and chemical/biological facilities.
Your reference to a mass-murderer like Hitler is incorrect. If the US were to drop a nuke on Beijing solely because they were communists, then this is true. A small tactical nuke strike to protect unknown-millions of Americans is not mass-murder.
The problem is that this is a civil case. A lawsuit, not a trial. The so called "double jeopardy" movie thing is not quite presented right anyways. AFAIK, Bob can't be tried for shooting John on Christmas Eve more than once, but if Bob shoots John again he can be tried for shooting him that second time. Even if it were a criminal case, Netscape could always claim that this was a different set of crimes.