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: Ish who wrote (34602)	7/18/2002 1:45:13 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ish, As usual for the FAS (or their counterparts at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) - they essentially rule out any use of nuclear weapons. They do NOT address the issue of response to Biological or Chemical ordinance. This is a real policy debate issue. My own feeling is that weapons of mass destruction are just that and our policy should be -> use any large scale WMD on US territory or troops and we will nuke you. End of story. This was the policy during the Gulf War and Saddam knew it. Would it work? Well MAD worked for decades and despite a few hotspots we survived the cold war. Your idea of incinerating bio or chemical stockpiles has great merit. If I were planning WMD responses, after an enemy had used one - all potential stockpile or launch locations would be hit. If I were designing weapons to target these - I would use bunker buster technology armed with neutron weapons of less than 10 kilotons. No nasty aftereffects outside of the blast zone. There would be collateral damage - but its alpha and short lived. Think about traditional ordinance hitting a bio-lab. If it doesn't do the job 110% - the collateral damage could be devastating. Imagine airborne polio... John

To: Ish who wrote (34602)	7/18/2002 5:44:08 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.