THEBRAIN

I think that can be done, and it really doesn't copmare to the Gulf. Two very different scenarios. Plus you can find volcanoes in very remote locations, and they are going to errupt anyways, so you have the safety specifications to properly maintain the process. I mean, you could use yellowstone for sure. That would just be another example of us using our Earth's natural resources. That's what we have been doing forever and it is what we will have to continue to do, because we can not evolve and survive without the Earth's resources. So one day there will be nothing left to use. But that's down the road. For now we drill volanoes and start producing electricity and more. Think of the power you could harness at yellowstone. That is a great idea, that will probablly come to fruition eventually. Accidents will always happen, this is not the first oil spill in the Gulf. And I'm sure that we will have accidents with volcanic matter, but that's just the price we pay for the resources.

Were I to think that it was un-ethical, it would be that our sailers could be killed while performing a simple excersise. With my military backgorund and experience I think that we should go through with our excersise and show them that they will not tell us what we can and cannot do in international waters. I could careless about North Korea's threats usually, because they cannot reach the coast with a nuke, but now our boys are well within striking range and it could be bad. Just something for us to discuss and think on over the next couple days until we know the outcome. By your logic then I could build a pipe bomb with possible faulty wires, and you would have no problem toting it around beacuse what would be the effect of a failed pipe bomb. Well obvioiusly nothing plus nothing equals nothing, so a failed nuke would not do anything, but you cannot say with infalibility that the nuke they fire will fail to detonate. While I dont think we should turn at run and agree with you on that, to assume that somthing is harmless is always a bad decision. Correct, and this is where the ethics come in. By us doing these excersises off the coast it could be interpreted as us delibrately challenging North Korea do back up there threat. This one topic has so many different ethical options. This is a great way to view it, the US would be making some threats of its own if someone was operating war games around our coast. So by your theory because the Russians said they had more and didn't the threat appeared real so we took it as such, so if they sey they only have 12 we souldn't because "they couldn't have more". All it takes is one.

Should the US continue its Military exersice after hearing of Nuclear threats from North Korea?

I think you have to seriously consider the number of laws in effect. Everyone is ignorant of the "laws". There is a law in Alabama that states you can bring your wife to the courthouse steps on Sunday and beat her, so if I do this will I be arrested? More than likely so. So you not only have to look at people not knowing all the laws because of the quantities, but you need to view how many un-necessary laws there are. If we abolish the laws that are no good to society anymore, than we might have more data space to store all the laws that are good for society. Thus ignorance would no longer be an issue and we could resume life as we know it.