Changes

:::The bigger issue here is that you are talking about deterrence from an ethics point of view, and I am talking about it from a political theory point of view. I'm not denying that there are ethics involved with a decision to push the big red button, but [[deterrence theory]] is not about that at all. It's a logical, cause-and-effect emotionless analysis at the problem of nuclear proliferation, and how to ensure you won't be attacked -- whether or not the opposition has the credible will to attack you. Whether or not moral equivalence happens to apply is not relavent to the argument at all; it's coincidence that it does, not design. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: I realize this overlaps Az's excellent points below. I wrote this, then didn't post until I had finished [[deterrence theory]], which is the crux of my whole argument)''

:::The bigger issue here is that you are talking about deterrence from an ethics point of view, and I am talking about it from a political theory point of view. I'm not denying that there are ethics involved with a decision to push the big red button, but [[deterrence theory]] is not about that at all. It's a logical, cause-and-effect emotionless analysis at the problem of nuclear proliferation, and how to ensure you won't be attacked -- whether or not the opposition has the credible will to attack you. Whether or not moral equivalence happens to apply is not relavent to the argument at all; it's coincidence that it does, not design. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: I realize this overlaps Az's excellent points below. I wrote this, then didn't post until I had finished [[deterrence theory]], which is the crux of my whole argument)''

==OTHER==

==OTHER==