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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (148261)	9/29/2002 11:06:13 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164687

To create a world at relative peace, we wisely adopted a policy of no first strike even though for decades both our forces and the Soviet forces were in a constant state of mobilzation. The policy of "no first strike" generally refers to the use of nuclear weapons - that we would not strike first, but would massively retaliate. "Mutually assured destruction" was what kept the peace between us. Our general posture against the Soviets was based on the simple idea that war between the two superpowers would inevitably lead to escalation to a nuclear conflict that no one could win. That didn't stop either side from getting into "proxy" wars with the other. Soviets supported North Vietnam, we supported Afghan rebels, etc. But direct military conflict was avoided because of the deterrence of M.A.D. "No first strike" was nothing more than the positive spin put on the realization that nuclear war could not be won, that no advantage is gained from striking first, and that there is no cost to NOT striking first (no more lives lost striking second than first). There are two reasons why "no first strike" is not relevant to the world today. First, mutual destruction is not assured and there IS a distinct advantage to be gained from a preemptive "first strike" (in the non-nuclear sense). Second, one-sided assured destruction is not a deterrent to terrorists who believe glory and a virgin-filled heaven await them as a reward for their own "first strike." That Saddam supports terrorists and has shown a desire to possess and willingness to use WMDs puts him in the same "not deterred by assured destruction" camp. In this world, we have a lot to lose from NOT striking first. Bob