At 03:27 PM 3/3/01 -0800, Chris Gwynn wrote:
>these are folk
>who would like a missile defence if it was actually possible and
>controlled by a government who would not use it to make a first
>strike 'survivable'.
This is hogwash. No missile defence system currently being considered
would be able to withstand even a nuclear retaliation from China, let alone
Russia. At best, the missile defence system could handle one or two missles.
>> So, let's say that said despot lobs a nuclear weapon at
>> Norfolk, VA.
> Boo! Hiss! unsporting action by despot! (although bringing it in by
>ship was a clever move - snuck right past that missile defence.)
A ship is possible - but in many ways is much more problematic than an
ICBM. With a ship, you need a loyal *and* suicidal crew. There are also
are hundreds of mishaps that could strike and cause you to loose your
nuclear weapon. Plus, there is the time frame aspect. Ships are darned
slow.
>> Will the American people *really* tolerate a retaliatory
>> nuclear attack that serve only to wipe out hundres of thousands of
>> Pakistani civilians?
> i am fairly certain that the majority of the population of the
>United States would not only tolerate such an action but would
>consider any hesitation in launching it to be an impeachable offence.
>remember, most of the US population is not particularly 'liberal' and
>would be very very angry.
> besides - i don't think that anyone who has any chance of getting
>elected to the Presidency is going to wait for poll results, consult
>a focus group, or do more than notify Congress before launching a
>retaliatory strike.
Considering the even John F. Kennedy (a "cowboy" in the White House if
there ever was one) repeatedly stood down those who sought to escalate
conflicts, I think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
Any President would consider the fact that killing a couple million
civilians in a country that we are not at war with would have no strategic
objective and would likely make us an object of extreme ire worldwide.
Let's put it this way - *I*, a conservative, if President of the United
States, would not retaliate with a nuclear weapon after losing a city to a
nuclear weapon of a rogue state.
> the treatment of Iraq suggests otherwise. Saddam Hussein is not
>popularly elected, is clearly repressive, and is essentially unharmed
>by the economic sanctions which are harming and hardening the Iraqi
>people and the Muslim world - yet the sanctions are almost
>unprotested in the United States and are little discussed. the US
>government is quite able to act in destructive ways which harm its
>own interests.
Undiscussed? Iraqi sanctions have only been the preeminent foreign policy
debate in the US for the past week.
>> Once the USA deploys a Missile
>> Defence, somebody somewhere will begin working on a way to thwart the
>> defence - but we'll keep working to keep our defences ahead of the game.
> indeed - but is it really a game that we want to play? perhaps we
>should play some other games, ones that are more profitable and more
>unambiguously moral. (where would Europe and Japan be now if the US
Is there a reason that your <SHIFT> key works for proper nouns, but not the
first letters of sentences?
>and its allies had treated the Axis powers after WWII like they are
>now treating Iraq? perhaps the Marshall Plan was more cost-effective
>than repressing 'those bad guys'....perhaps there are more effective
>ways to handle the possibility of a missile attack.)
There's a little problem with running a Marshall Plan for Iraq or Russia or
Country X these days - that little matter of an unfriendly government and
no occupying army. If you can figure out a way around this, then you are
a more brilliant man than I.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
