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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4797)	5/1/2005 8:55:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

A Warsaw Pact invasion of W. Germany would have resulted in tactical nukes very quickly. It had too- -NATO was heavily outnumbered, particularly in armor. The only way to stop them was to nuke the armies. The USSR said if nukes were used on Warsaw Pact troops, it would launch. That would be when the Warsaw pact would be "actually starting to invade", not them using nukes just because an invasion failed. NATO's possible use of nukes would be exactly what I was talking about not some contrary example. Also I'm not so sure it would have resulted in tactical nukes being used quickly or NATO quickly being rolled up if it stayed conventional. The Warsaw Pact had a numerical advantage overall, and a big numerical advantage in tanks but it had serious disadvantages as well. Fortunately it didn't happen even if that means we don't get to find out how it would turn out. Tim

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4797)	5/5/2005 3:47:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7936

"I begin with an observation so fundamental, so straightforward and obvious, that it could be controversial only in the most elite law schools. That observation, to which I will devote considerable attention, is that ours is a written Constitution. When I say ours is a written constitution, I refer, of course, to the actual Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, the document reprinted in this little pamphlet in my hand. I do not refer to the legion of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, applying it to particular factual situations, and in many cases providing us with an extended exegesis on its meaning. Those decisions are not the Constitution; as a practical matter, they are reasonably reliable guides to its application in future cases, but they are not the Constitution itself. To maintain otherwise is to ascribe to the Supreme Court a doctrine of infallibility it has never claimed for itself." - Judge Ginsburg quoted at legalaffairs.org