I concur completely.
On 4/20/07, Dave Kahn <dkahn400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/04/07, rick baird <rick.baird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sure those sentiments have already been imparted to them. at
> least, I certainly hope so. on the other hand, many dems argue to
> remove the nuclear option from the table, even in retaliation of a
> nuclear strike.
Can't do it. That would almost guarantee that they'd use theirs.
Deterrence only works when the other guy is absolutely certain that
you won't use yours first, but is equally certain that you will
retaliate if he uses his. He has to believe it, which means that you
have to mean it, which means that you have already made those two
decisions in advance.
Equally once you begin considering tactical first strike options you
increase the chances that the other guy will do the same.
The other option is to disarm, but you can't do that unilaterally
because then the other guy will be tempted to hit you or at least your
friends with his. Nukes have only been used against one country, and
that country did not have them.
The ultimate aim should be complete disarmament by everyone, verified
and policed. The more countries that join in the game the more remote
that already very distant possibility becomes. Even tiny Britain, who
couldn't possibly win a nuclear war, is renewing Trident. When a
country controlled by religious fundamentalists joins in that's really
bad news because the conventional idea of deterrence may no longer
hold good.
--
Dave...
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
