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: JohnM who wrote (75235)2/18/2003 3:27:42 PM
From: carranza2   of 281500
 
You can avoid the discussion if you wish as it is obviously your right to do so. I'm nevertheless setting forth the fallacies in the M&W argument for anyone who does wish to discuss them with me.

The linchpin in the M&W argument is that Saddam can be deterred and that he attacks only when he perceives that his enemy is weak and he is comparatively stronger. He supposedly uses a rational calculus in doing so.

I disagree with this notion but I'm willing to concede it for purposes of argument. However, I am not willing to concede the fact that containment has been a bad joke and that Saddam could very well be armed with nukes in the near future should things keep going in the same direction.

The question, then, is this: assuming Saddam can be deterred and is a rational calculator of risks, what will be his risk assessment when he is armed with nuclear weapons? Let me suggest how it might go:

1.- Kuwait is a plum to be picked because the Americans will not send their troops into nuclear combat. I'll threaten nukes against Israel if they make enough noise. [You might recall that Saddam has been quoted as saying that his primary mistake in attacking Kuwait was doing so before he had obtained nukes. As an interesting mental exercise, try to reconfigure history if he had nukes in '90 and '91--this will give you a taste of what will happen if the failed containment policy is pursued.]

2.- Saudi Arabia can be also be picked because the Americans will not send their troops into nuclear combat and risk destroying Islam's holy sites. I'll threaten nukes against Israel if they make enough noise.

3.- The Israelis can be deterred and cowed since, as a small country, they cannot risk nuclear attacks.

4.- With nukes I can control ME oil and force the Americans and the West into significant concessions.

That is exactly how a "rational" deterrable Saddam would think if he were armed with nukes. This scenario fits perfectly within the M&W scheme and is the reason why their argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News