trc@houca.UUCP (09/16/83)
Response to stan the lep hack and others:
First, for those of you that did not notice, my note suggested putting
a weapon in airliners that could *only* be activated after the plane
were shot down. Actually, I considered putting a :-) on it, though
not for the reason "stan" mentions - it is simply not a safe thing to
do, when compared with the current level of risk of being shot down.
It makes much more sense to simply stay out of Soviet air space.
Also, it really would not have been much of a deterrent in the case
of the Soviets - the pilot would have had to obey orders even if he
knew of the airline's weapon. One real problem of "dying gasp" weapons
is making sure that they dont go off prematurely, causing a provocation
or disaster.
However, I dont think that a workable "dying gasp" weapon would be irrational -
its purpose is to deter attack, without provoking one. It is not irrational
to kill an irrational person that has just mortally wounded you - it falls in
the category of punitive actions. Stan seems to be making the assumption that
it is *always* irrational to kill another person. Or perhaps he might make a
distinction between killing an attacker before they mortally wound and after,
saying that the former is rational self-defense, and the latter is irrational.
Thus we arrive at the surprising idea that it is worse (from the defender's
point of view) for the attacker to *intend* to kill one than it is for him to
intend and then actually *succeed* in doing so.
\\\\
|0|0|
( \_/ ) OK?
=====
Tom Craver
houca!trc