I think we are confusing the term "First Strike". During the cold war, First Strike meant "opening salvo", the first release of weapons in the initial engagement of any hostilities. In most cases, it was planned that a complete launch of all weapons would be the only option, since any weapons not used in the first salvo would probably not exist for release in the second.
Since the cold war ended, First Strike has changed to mean "preemptive" strike. It was seldom thought that the US would launch a preemptive strike against the USSR (although many script writers were employed thinking about it). It was just about inconceivable that the US would EVER launch a preemptive strike. On 4/18/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nukes are a first option for the US because that is one of the ways we keep > other countries from using them as a first option. > > If Iran nukes Israel we will have to respond, the only way we can respond is > with nukes. However, if Iran thinks that even developing a bomb will get > them nuked, it might be something they would consider. > > The US and the USSR went for years with the threat of First Strike > capability. Sections of our military are designed just for that purpose. We > have subs and missile silos around the world to allow us to strike first. > > The President didn't make the statement. He was asked if it was an option. > Of course it is an option, it will always be an option for any President in > office. Saying anything less would be a lie. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204531 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
