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 (36882)	8/11/2002 1:45:45 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

Do you really expect Saddaam to use 1, mebbe 2 nukes (IF he can develop 'em) on us? Or on Israel (wiping out Palestine and neighboring Arab lands)? The only place he might strategically be able to use it would be on SA, but that'd merely unite Arab leaders against him, as well as certain US pulverization of his sorry butt. That's a major point: if he has that, where can he use it non-suicidally? I think the other WMDs, which can be contained within smaller site-specific areas, make more sense. This is the old back and forth, which I'm a bit tired of, but it's a valid debate point. Frankly, none of us know what Saddam, or his sons, would do with a nuclear weapon. We know Saddam has been more than willing to use chemical weapons, and there's a good probability he has plenty of bugs and borax left, given the regime's track record of being able to hide this stuff. My opinion is - why wait to find out what he'll do? We know he's ambitious, aggressive, and prone to severe misjudgement which generally leads to severe devestation of his country. His sons are even worse, by all accounts. But anyway... Cuba's a good example though. Even though Castro hasn't been eliminated, he's toothless and only his own are being hurt by him now. That'd be acceptable with Saddaam, to me. Problem is, Iraq isn't an island a few miles off Florida. His neighbors are, shall we say, less than zealous in their cooperation with the US. The sanctions are, for all intents, no longer in place. Saddam has been pumping oil and shipping it through Syria and smuggling it out the Persian Gulf with a wink wink from Iran for a number of years. With such a long border with states willing to look the other way, if not completely complicit in sanctions busting, it's hardly safe to say we can contain Saddam. If Saddam is allowed to live another day, it is one more feather in his cap in the eyes of the Arab world. If he is allowed to continue thumbing his nose at the US behind porous "sanctions" and is able to build a nuclear device, there will be no stopping him later. If we think it hard to get the Gulf States, Jordan and Turkey behind us now, forget it. That's my hasty take. Derek

To: SirRealist who wrote (36882)	8/12/2002 5:49:35 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

SirR, I don't think you should require 'non-suicidal' use of nukes by Saddam. He is in his element with the current drama. Confrontation and power are his life. He loves them like I love CDMA. Death by 100 megatons would not be a big deal to him - that's the risk of losing a confrontation. He would guess that the cowardly Americans would rather surrender Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and etc than risk a nuke in Los Angeles or somewhere. Waiting for him isn't necessarily the wisest course. As shown by destruction of the Twin Towers, death isn't always much of a deterrent; it can be an incentive. Assuming death is a deterrent is risky. Mqurice