The usual theory is that nuclear weapons only protect the homeland, they do not protect a nation's attacks on others.
I agree, and have a very simple explanation. You don't nuke things you want, you nuke things you don't want. Because after you nuke them, they're ruined. Everything within a large area is destroyed, and within a larger area rendered radioactive and unusable for years.
So it would be foolish to nuke territory you wanted to take.
Ergo, no religious Moslem is ever going to nuke Jerusalem, and probably not even Tel Aviv, which is close enough to Jerusalem to make a big mess. How that shakes out with respect to Saddam I have no idea, but expect that he'd think the same way for political reasons.
However, what if the goal is not to take territory, but to intimidate and disrupt the other side so that they back off, or are weakened?
Think like an Iraqi. What do they do when they are attacked? Run away, fall back, regroup. What if they think that if we're attacked we'll do what they do? What if they can't think through what we'll really do?
What if they don't realize that we'll come back a hundred times as hard and pulverize them?
That's what's making me nervous. I don't think Saddam is as smart, or as insightful, as Carl Bilow. |
