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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (595)	12/17/2002 10:15:53 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 15987

I will look up the exact language of the declaration, since I skimmed originally. I will get back to you.....

To: zonder who wrote (595)	12/17/2002 10:43:23 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

What he said was that all options would be considered in responding with overwhelming force to a WMD attack on the United States, its overseas troops, or its allies, and that nuclear weapons would not be ruled out. I take this as being akin to our refusal to rule out first use of nukes in the European theater in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion. In other words, it is not a promise to blow up Baghdad, it is a threat, leaving one guessing what we would do, and what the tripwire of escalation would be. Remember, by the way, that it is not necessary to use a big, dirty "city killer" nuke, we have small nukes that would take out an army battalion, intermediate nukes that would take out 50k to 200k, and so forth, up to "city killers". Thus, the threat to use "overwhelming force" may amount to no more than to take out most of the enemies army in one blast, instead of leaving them opportunities to retreat or surrender. Thus, overall, I approve of the policy.......