> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:12 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? > > At 03:28 PM 3/6/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > >"Miller, Jeffrey" wrote: > > > > > I'm more curious as to under what circumstances you feel certain > > > countries -should- be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and why. Are > > > there countries that you're not 100% comfortable with possesion of > nukes, > > > but would accept it under certain other conditions? > > > >I'm not comfortable with nukes, period. But the genie is out of the > bottle. > > > >I think that if there were some sort of treaty between *all* countries > that > >have nukes that vowed they would not use nukes unless their borders were > >attacked first, I'd be a little more comfortable. > > > >And part of the treaty would be that if it were broken by one country, > all > >the rest would each lob 1 warhead at that capital. (If you use a nuke > >without sufficient provocation, you get nuked. Poetic justice.) > > > >But that's probably a bit much. > > > > Along those lines, how about this for an alternative to attacking Iraq for > all those who think that's a bad idea: > > We bring our troops home. Then President Bush makes another speech in > which he announces that if there's a terror attack against the US or our > interests (however we might define that: perhaps our citizens, embassies, > etc., abroad), within one hour maximum we will destroy the capital of one > of the nations on the preannounced list of "terrorist-sponsoring nations," > the message being that if you (the leaders of the nations on the list) > want > to keep on breathing, you will stop sponsoring and permitting terrorism. > > > > Submitted For Discussion Maru
IMO, that's a very very bad idea. The world would turn against us in a heartbeat and we'd be likely to inadvertently incite WW3. In retaliating we would be acting unilaterally without presenting proof to international forums that the country we attacked was really responsible for sponsoring the attack against us. We could and probably would be accused of creating an incident as an excuse to go to war. Your comment also implies we'd be wiping out civilians in massive numbers. An hour is not enough time to evacuate a civilian population. That's horrifying. Countries that are on the list might now be given an excuse to strike us first, overtly. Countries that aren't on the list could manipulate a response from us against their enemies. Our own people could do the same. For example: The KKK blows up a federal building in Alabama. We blow up Baghdad. Oops? I'm sure I'll have more to say once I'm more awake. :) Jon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
