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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (19099)	2/17/2002 9:30:35 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

wow That certainly is breathtaking. Brethtakingly horrible. As I see it, what he is essentially saying is "We don't like how this other country (which invaded Kuwait, not our country, some time ago) is behaving- and depriving them of resources isn't hurting them as much as we wanted, nor is it toppling their legitimate government, and since a ground war might be tough (because we want to topple their legitimate government) we really ought to think about dusting off those nukes." Is that what he is saying? Because I find that rather less than compelling, I find that insane.

To: SirRealist who wrote (19099)	2/17/2002 5:24:49 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Ugh, indeed. There was a lot of loose talk about nukes in Afghanistan too, mercifully all apparently of Debka caliber in veracity. I know this is all hypothetical, but let's stop at #1. 1) With fortified bunkers and a record of evasiveness, Hussein might survive conventional theater attacks with Plans B, C, D, etc in place that could include the launch of bio-chemical weaponry most experts feel he already possesses. A first strike that immediately takes him and his inner circle and successors out instantly eliminates most incentives for his troops to continue. And likely ends the threat of a counterattack with WMD. A first strike that immediately takes out Saddam presumes precise knowledge of his location. In which case, it's hard to argue for nukes over alternatives. If his location is not precisely known, I guess you could argue it's a demonstration of our determination, but it seems even more dubious. Given the vast superiority of the (conventional) US military to any other force on the planet, arguing for nukes on a convenience basis seems, er, a little cheeky. I'm sure the local warheads would have no problem rationalizing moral superiority after that, but the rest of the world might find it offputting. The other thing is, after the US anthrax experience, it's not entirely clear how big a threat biological weapons are. With immediate response, it's not clear there would be significant casualties. And what if the US source turns out to be domestic? Who we gonna nuke then?