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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul61 who wrote (10569)	10/25/2006 1:31:35 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217740

That's not the way it works. You use a conventional weapon to destroy a conventional target. The attacked retaliates with a conventional weapon. The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

To: paul61 who wrote (10569)	10/25/2006 3:16:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217740

As ElM says, the USA would unleash not just a spot of shock and awe, it would be a full spectrum removal of anything resembling a military facility of the responsible political entity and possibly those of related associates who might be complicit in the attack. As Hezbollah said after they attacked Israel and killed and kidnapped, they wouldn't have done if they realized the response that Israel would give. A similar mistake might be made by somebody deciding they can attack the USA. Osama's crowd has certainly had their ranks reduced. Mqurice