SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ish who wrote (34602)7/18/2002 5:44:08 PM
From: jcky  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Yes, the nuclear device would incinerate any remnants of a biologic threat. But there would be a cost.

The more serious of the implications is the blurring of the distinction between a conventional or nuclear attack. It has been well established that nuclear arms has served as a mean of deterrence ever since the end of the second world war.

Using a limited nuclear strike as an offensive option would open up a Pandora's box and set up a deadly precedent. Imagine if both Pakistan or India did not have any hesitations with employing a limited nuclear first strike option against each other over Kashmir. Or if Israel chose to use a limited nuclear strike against Iran, Iraq, or Syria for supporting acts of terrorism?

Another consequence of using a nuclear strike would be the radioactive fallout on the surrounding milieu. So you kill the bugs but get cancer instead.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News