Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Homeland Security -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (412)	11/11/2001 5:01:55 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 827

For many reasons, the U.S. will never adopt such a policy. Actually, all I've done is articulate the MAD policy we've had for 50 years, and that has preserved nuclear peace for as long. Nobody likes that policy, it is unthinkable, it is not talked about, but the fact is that everywhere the President goes so goes someone carrying the nuclear suitcase, which carries nuclear retaliatory options against attacks on the homeland. If it is a countervalue attack, say, on NY, LA, oil refineries, or whatever, the retaliatory plan calls for an equivalent response. A rational enemy knows this, and that has kept the peace. Russia has the same doctrine and, being rational, neither side attacks. The issue is whether the current terrorists are rational. I claim they are, these are not crazies, they are extremely misguided, but there is a method to their actions. They want us out of their holy lands, they want us to stop supporting Israel, etc. They believe that by attacking us the way they are, we will back down and acquiesce to their demands. But they value certain things that they will not risk, and the very holy lands they want us out of is what they value most. So, we don't have to create a new doctrine, we just extend what we already have. (edit, technically, it would not be an extension of MAD, since they lack the power to destroy us, it would be more of a "force de frappe" deterrence) We couch the terms delicately, so as not to offend those who don't want to think about these things, we say that an attack on our homeland values will lead to an equivalent response on those targets that are enemies value the most, and we will not hesitate to respond anywhere in the world, even in their most cherished places. They will get the message. We need to develop a homeland security policy to prevent the use of these weapons, and respond to their use. So what do you suggest as a way of keeping nuclear weapons out of the homeland, and how do you propose we respond if, say, they threaten to vaporize New York (or actually set one off)?