JDG wrote:
>So yes, the USA *could* in theory, destroy a nuclear missile site,
>once built. Then again, do you really want to put Saddam Hussein
>in the position of "use your missile now, or forever lose your
>piece?" Unless we are able to successfully thwart construction of
>the missile site in the first place, I betcha that as soon as the
>thing goes OnLine, the USA wisely pledges to stay as far away as
>possible.
>
>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?
Most likely? Given our nation's tendency to react in extremis to almost
everything? Iraq as a nation would cease to exist, no matter the cries of
the international community. In fact, I'll warrant that the American people
would demand it.
And here's a question: Assuming that it is possible to establish a missile
shield, what is more likely to occur first? That missile shield becoming
operational, or a nation like Iraq getting its hands on an ICBM?
>JDG - In the case of Miami, "good riddance" is *not* a suitable
>answer! ;-)
Hey, what's wrong with Miami? Every nation needs a place where the rich and
decadent spend their time. At least ours is far, far to the south. :)
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
