What I'm saying was that if it was clearly identifiable that a country was responsible for an attack (ex. country declares war on Israel, fires nuke), then they deserve to be ruined.
It's not that I'm advocating going around tossing nukes at the home country of a single terrorist or group, I was just addressing the specific issue where we're so worried about X or Y country acquiring nuclear weapons. If that country would ever use them as part of a declared war on our allies, then they'd deserve what came to them.
But as I (and Dan above noted), the real issue is if individuals sneak these weapons around and cause mass destruction - who deserves the response to that atrocity?
So if Saddam decided to throw a nuclear bomb at some country, all Iraqis would have been responsible for this? And you advocate wiping them all out? Is the president, in this case, any different from a terrorist? Particularly an unelected president - one who cannot be said to represent the members of his country.
People don't 'deserve' death because someone in their neighbourhood did something bad.
It is attitudes like 'countries deserve to be ruined' that cause world wars. The U.S, without being provoked, declared war on Iraq and caused the death of 600.000 Iraqis. Do 600.000 U.S citizens now 'deserve' to die?
Think before repeat things, even if you grew up hearing them.
It's not that I'm advocating going around tossing nukes at the home country of a single terrorist or group, I was just addressing the specific issue where we're so worried about X or Y country acquiring nuclear weapons. If that country would ever use them as part of a declared war on our allies, then they'd deserve what came to them.
But as I (and Dan above noted), the real issue is if individuals sneak these weapons around and cause mass destruction - who deserves the response to that atrocity?