Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother |
| From | Raven |
| Date | 2002-05-20 00:49 (2002-05-20 00:49) |
| Message-ID | <tPWF8.111$5A.3890@news.get2net.dk> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | David Flood |
"David Flood" <maoltuileNOSPAM@utvinternet.ie>skrev i en meddelelse news:ac95jv$njf8n$1@ID-121201.news.dfncis.de...
Which rule? I read rumours that some in the current administration have voiced opinions in favour of relaxing the restrictions against using tactical nukes. If this is true, it would indeed be an evil. Nukes should be used only as a last resort against an enemy nuclear strike. And it may be that in some administration there might be temptation, on the basis of nuclear invulnerability, to use tactical nukes. Then again: what if someone like Saddam Hussein does get nukes, and the means to deliver them from home territory to European or American soil? Even Hussein would not be likely to just fire them off, merely to watch the fireworks and smell the soot afterwards. But he probably would fire them off as a last resort - that is, if he were about to lose his power, and would rather kill a few million Americans and a few million of his own countrymen in the counterstrike than to go down alone. Hitler wanted Germany to go under in a cataclysm if Germany couldn't win. If the German people lost the war they were not worthy of him, and he would rather they all be killed and the country blotted out. Or Saddam could blackmail his foes into sparing him, if he were about to lose a war. Granted that the West (not just the USA) has been doing some unsavoury things and some unsavoury things more in the Third World. Also recently. But chasing Hussein out of Kuwait was not one of them. If Hussein had been able to threaten to nuke a major US or European city, he probably would have been sitting on Kuwait still, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. We would know and he would know that he would have fewer scruples than we about using long-range nukes. That would give him an advantage, if he had any nukes. I'm not saying that Star Wars should be deployed. But I'll not knee-jerk oppose it, either.RavenDavid Flood
If the USA cannot be nuked, they will be less likely to nuke others themselves.
Hasn't Bush recently changed that inconvenient little rule, wrt his nuclear arsenal?
Jon L. Beck.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
