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: Bilow who wrote (37185)	8/12/2002 9:34:15 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The usual theory is that nuclear weapons only protect the homeland, they do not protect a nation's attacks on others. I agree, and have a very simple explanation. You don't nuke things you want, you nuke things you don't want. Because after you nuke them, they're ruined. Everything within a large area is destroyed, and within a larger area rendered radioactive and unusable for years. So it would be foolish to nuke territory you wanted to take. Ergo, no religious Moslem is ever going to nuke Jerusalem, and probably not even Tel Aviv, which is close enough to Jerusalem to make a big mess. How that shakes out with respect to Saddam I have no idea, but expect that he'd think the same way for political reasons. However, what if the goal is not to take territory, but to intimidate and disrupt the other side so that they back off, or are weakened? Think like an Iraqi. What do they do when they are attacked? Run away, fall back, regroup. What if they think that if we're attacked we'll do what they do? What if they can't think through what we'll really do? What if they don't realize that we'll come back a hundred times as hard and pulverize them? That's what's making me nervous. I don't think Saddam is as smart, or as insightful, as Carl Bilow.

To: Bilow who wrote (37185)	8/12/2002 10:37:28 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What nuclear weapons do is create what we, in our non PC youth, called a "Mexican Standoff", which is two people with loaded guns pointed at each other. A Mexican standoff assumes both people have guns. If only one person has a gun, different story. That's what you're kind of ignoring with this "nuclear shield" theory.

To: Bilow who wrote (37185)	8/12/2002 10:47:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Then we would have admitted that we were bluffing. That's why we didn't do it, not because the people in charge of foreign policy then were morons. That was the inherent part of the problem. We'd just finished using Atomic weapons on one tyrannical regime in 1945, but then we suddenly were not willing to use them again against a greater tyrant who was constantly threatening to overrun western Europe, AS WELL AS NOT complying with political pluralism and self-determination. (there were plenty of communist parties in Western Europe so we were keeping our end of the bargain). But there's no doubt that using Nukes is applying a sledgehammer. However, the alternative was containment and the surrender of millions of people to Soviet domination and subjugation. And AGAIN you misstate what my point is. Buffer states like North Korea were "expendable" to Stalin. The Nuclear Shield pertained ONLY to deterring direct attacks upon Russia. Soviet Nuclear weapons PREVENTED the US from directly attacking the source of aggression performed by Soviet armed and directed proxy states. Despite the knowledge that Stalin was directing the aggression of these proxy states, we were powerless to directly confront him since it would risk a retaliatory attack. And he was powerless to attack us as we countered his "ventures" around the world. So the war was fought on every front BUT the US or Russia. And yes Nukes are defensive. But they are also "offensive" in that they permit a nation to avoid the ultimate repercussions of any aggressive action against neighboring states. Any nation seeking to counter such aggression knows that it will be relegated to conventional means of doing so, thus causing them to waste economic resources opposing such naked aggression rather than being able to overthrow and remove the sources of this aggression. And don't even try and tell me that if Saddam obtains Nukes his position and prestige in the region won't increase substantially. He will be able to engage in direct subversion, and/or outright aggression without being required to pay the ultimate price (removal or assassination). Neither we, nor anyone else in the region, will risk nuclear escalation in defense of Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Israel can take care of itself since they have the means of destroying Saddam, but nothing will prevent Saddam from continuing to fund an internal insurgency aimed at destabilizing Israel from within. Yes, there will be a Mexican Standoff between Israel and Iraq, but while they are pointing pistols at one another, Saddam will will be sending his "attack dogs" to gnaw on Israel's legs until they fall down. That, imo, is more destabilizing since the Israelis will perceive multiple threats and if they fall, they are likely to take everyone with them. I certainly don't see Israelis just saying "ok.. you win, we're leaving Palestine now" without ensuring that their tormentors are left with nothing worth having. Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons held by democracies don't frighten me. Their use is restricted by the temperance of their society. But permitting a tyrant such as Saddam, who is more than slightly obsessed with power, surrounded by "yes men" and likely as mentally deranged as Hitler frightens me more than just a little. Hawk