"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> Then, of course, the real fun begins - because you don't even need to *use*
> your missile to cause some damage. If Saddam Hussein goes on television
> and says "you have 12 hours to evacuate Charlotte", do you stay, or do you
> go? And if, Hussein, say, has two nuclear missiles, calls our bluff, and
> roasts Charlotte, if he says "Miami's turn is tomorrow, unless all
> sanctions are lifted and the US begins paying war reparations", *then*
> what?
>
The first one isn't that hard - you inform the agressor that you have scheduled
a launch in 11.5 hours on his backyard, and will only stop when it is clear
Charlotte is safe. The second one is even easier - the US is always going to
have better weapons, better delivery systems, and a bigger arsenal than its
agressors. After the first one you just start lobbing them in faster than he can
lob them out... Even the anti-nuclear US voters will support that one after a US
city has been attacked. Don't forget you have B1-B, B2, F117, and Tomahawk
capability that no-one other than Russia has, and even their best aren't up to
B1-B standard, not to mention CVN and submarine fleets to project presence and
power. This is one of the reasons the missile defence project doesn't make
sense. None of the enemies of the US with the possible, potential exception of
Afghanistan can disperse their weapons widely enough to avoid the reach of the
US military might. (I'm assuming here that former USSR states and China, while
not best buddies with the US are not hostile enough to start throwing nukes
through the stratosphere).
Russell Chapman
Brisbane Australia
