At 22:53 30-8-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
> >> and DPRK
> >
> >They _have_ tested a bomb? We've confirmed that they have the tech?
>
>It is the consensus of foreign policy experts that they have a bomb.
It was also the consensus of the experts that the Soviet Union would not
fall, and that Iraq would not invade Kuwait...
I must agree with Doug here. If you want to use the possible possesion of
nuclear arms by any country as a reason for backing out of the ABM Treaty,
you must first supply proof that said country actually *does* have nuclear
weapons. The "consensus of foreign policy experts" does not qualify as
proof -- especially given their less-than-stellar track record (see above).
>They also recently (1998 or 1999?) developed a missile (much to our
>surprise) that is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear
>payload.
Another reason why we should not put too much faith in what the "experts"
say...
> >>(and the likely development of nuclear weapons by Iraq and Iran within
> 10 years)
> >
> >Something that might happen doesn't really count as an event of any kind.
>
>It most certainly does!
It most certainly does not! If we allow this, the road is wide open for
every country to use any possible future event as a reason to arm
themselves to the teeth. The result: another arms race, another Cold War,
more chances of some idiot government getting so pissed at their neighbours
that they hit the <Launch> button. Not something I look forward to.
>Once someone like Saddam Hussein has multiple
>nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States, it may very well be
>too late for missile defense. If Hussein thinks that we can build
>defenses faster than he can build missiles, deciding to build a missile
>defense may well provide a perverse incentive for him to blow his wad.
Ah yes, first you force him to spend huge amounts of money on weapons, and
then you can accuse him of letting his people starve because he spends his
money on weapons. Nice tactic...
BTW, would it not be more cost-efficient to have the CIA eliminate Saddam
Hussein, and replace the Iraqi government with some US-friendly puppet
regime? I mean, that should cost considerably less than building a missile
shield. And it is not that the US has no experience with it.
Heck, for what that shield will cost, you may even be able to also take
over Pakistan. Taking over India might be a problem though -- you know,
India already being democratic and all that. Makes it kinda hard to topple
their government and get away with it.
>P.S. Was this a flame? You betcha.
Shame on you for flaming on-list. :-(
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
