At 17:19 04-03-01 -0800, Christopher Gwyn wrote:
> >> besides - i don't think that anyone who has any chance of getting
> >> elected to the Presidency is going to wait {snip} 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 don't recall Kennedy having to make a choice about what to do
>after a US city was nuked. various US Presidents - including some i
>disapprove of - have, sometimes to my surprise, avoided escalating
>conflicts. however i think that an immediate declaration of war upon
>the 'nuking party' would be followed by immediate, overwhelming,
>devastating retaliation. and that it quite possibly would include a
>nuclear warhead, accompanied by a speech using the phrase "an eye for
>an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
>
> > I think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
> would it help you listen to what i am saying if i said that about
>you? would it help you respond in a calm and reasoned fashion? would
>it make you feel like i respect you enough to listen to what you say?
>
> > 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.
> i would like to think that is the case. however i do not think that
>is the case. The US government is a lot better than a lot of
>governments - one of the benefits of the rule of law and fairly free
>elections - but it is far from perfect. i think that it is quite
>possible that the president of a US that had just lost a city to a
>nuclear explosion would - if the perpetrator was known - retaliate,
>and quite possibly do so by nuking that country's capitol.
>
> > 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.
> Good for you. i would be supporting that decision, and probably help
>raise money for your defence in your impeachment trial. i remember
>how people were after the Oklahoma City bombing....imagine the anger
>if that had been the whole city.
Another thing to consider, which I often bring up in class to see where it
leads:
If the meteoroid that exploded over Tunguska in 1908 had hit Moscow,
Beijing, or New York City anytime after about 1960, would the leader of the
affected country have waited long enough for scientists to tell him that
the destruction of the city had been caused by a natural event, or would he
have assumed that the destruction was caused by a missile and ordered
immediate retaliation against the nation suspected of launching an attack?
-- Ronn! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Ronn Blankenship
Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, AL
Standard Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated
otherwise, any opinions stated herein are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent the
official position of the University of Montevallo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
