----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: RE: Nuclear Iran
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 1:21 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > >We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like > > >position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an > > >inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would > be a sign > > >that such is indeed on the way. > > > > > > > > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when > it was set up, > > it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like > position to control > > proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have hoped). > > The Security Council was the five major powers of the Allies > after WWII. > France was in there as a gift from the US. At the time, only > the US had > nuclear weapons. Also, at that time, the only significant > military forces > were those of the US and the USSR. > >Gee, its lucky the Germans and Japanese waited around till America >joined the war isnt it, or they would have overrun all of Europe, >England, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia/Oceania, given that >the miserable British Commonwealth (and other allied)forces had just >been sitting around having picnics. Well, one of the countries that I mentioned, the Soviet Union, had 90% of the German forces allied against it on D-day. The assault on the Soviet Union was, to our good fortune, bungled horridly. The war in Europe from this assault in June 1941 until D-Day was, with modest exceptions like the campaign in Italy, focus on the eastern front and the bombing campaign. Britain stood for a number of reasons during that time: including FDR stretching US law beyond recognition supplying Great Britain...including having US destroyers fight German U-boats before declaring war, Hitler's lack of comfort with sea battles, and Britain's tenacity. If the British Army was a major force, one would think they would have been able to slow Hitler's attack in France. Finally, the greatest advantage the US had in WWII, and it's main contribution to the war in Europe, was it's tremendous industrial capacity. I remember reading "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Spear, and his recounting the day he knew Germany could not win. He was given their best estimate of US fighter plane production. He said "this must be some kind of mistake, it says 10,000 a month, when they must have meant 10,000 a year." The answer was "No Herr Spear, it's 10,000/month. At that time the US oil production was as high as it needed to be. The only reason for gasoline rationing was to conserve rubber. Once the US went into war mode, it was actually able to fight a two front war, with it's industrial base secure to produce weapons without worry of attack. Saying this has nothing to do with the courage or the tenacity of Commonwealth forces. It only has to do with evaluating the strength of forces and industrial capacity that supplies those forces. My point was that, after WWII, the two great military powers were the US and USSR. It had nothing to do with the bravery of the Commonwealth forces or people...which I certainly respect. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
