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: D. Long who wrote (35408)	7/31/2002 2:46:47 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

Essentially. Saddam Hussein wants nuclear weapons to first, overcome the conventional superiority of Israel, or his prey of the hour; and two, to deter anyone from doing anything about it. In short, nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. If Saddam were likely to come into possession of a deliverable nuclear arsenal, say a few MIRVed ICBMs or a ballistic missile submarine, that would give him offensive potential. That's not going to happen. If he were able to buy one or two on the black market - a feat much easier in the movies than in real life - that would be a very different story. He couldn't use those against the US without removing them from his control and possibly losing them (they would have to be smuggled into the US), and facing retaliation on a massive scale. He couldn't use one against Israel without facing retaliation on an extremely massive scale. In either case the retaliation would leave him, his family, and his dream of domination very dead. His range of offensive options would be very limited indeed.

To: D. Long who wrote (35408)	7/31/2002 9:30:41 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Essentially. Saddam Hussein wants nuclear weapons to first, overcome the conventional superiority of Israel, or his prey of the hour; and two, to deter anyone from doing anything about it. In short, nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. I'll be darned, I assumed you said something like the following: That is the entire point of having those weapons is it not? The whole point of having nuclear weapons is first, to deter your enemies from attacking you, and two to be the great leveler in the event you are overwhelmed in conventional warfare. And I thought that statement was a generic one. I didn't realize you thought only a certain select few acquired them for these reasons. ;-) If you get real serious about it, we don't know why Saddam wants nuclear weapons, we simply assume he does. Your statement was a good rephrasing of the conventional reason why Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. have acquired them. Makes sense it would apply to Iraq as well. As for the moral equivalency stuff, is that supposed to stop an argument. Anything Sharon does is ok; anything anyone else does in the ME is wrong. Please.