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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (161711)	3/23/2006 4:19:15 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

In regards to the former, they don't call it MAD for nothing. I have no doubt but that the war rooms planned first strike scenarios, but that does not mean the US wanted to start a nuclear war. It just means they scoped out all possibilities, failure of which would have been dereliction of duty. I really haven't studied Cold War planning all that much, but I know some think tank figured out that the cheapest way to prevent nuclear war was to set up Mutually Assured Destruction that would make both sides afraid to start it. Apparently the Russians agreed. Your assertion that USA was more likely than USSR to strike first in a nuclear exchange is the bullflop I was talking about. The Strategic Air Command had as its motto "Peace is Our Profession." Since they were going to be the first to die in a nuclear war, they had the most interest in keeping the peace. If USA was ahead of USSR in nuclear capability, that was damn OK by me. You probably should be glad of it too, since THAT is what kept the war from starting. Preemptive action is no more than prudent when you are dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein and that Iranian cat, whatever his name is.