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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (237889)	7/26/2007 4:23:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The launches into Israel were just a threat. A chemical launch on Israel was not enough of a threat to deter a USA attack. A nuke attack on Tel Aviv would swing it. But it didn't seem that he had that ability judging from the scud launching. If it was for real, he'd have been better to keep a whole lot of scuds to act as decoys so the Big Bang could get through. If bluffing, better to demonstrate a few launches, then wait to see if the bluff was called. If not bluffing, better to demonstrate a few, then wait to see if they attack. All this is a reason for why Saddam might decide not to put chemical warheads on the SCUDs he lobbed into Israel. It gives no reason for why his supplies of chemical weapons, plentiful enough only 3 years before, would have disappeared. It's not easy to make nukes. That's why the CIA was unpleasantly surprised by their discoveries after 1991. The various claims about yellowcake and so on just didn't ring true There was only one thing he could have wanted it for. So if he wanted it, that was evidence.