Well, the general rule is that you're not suppose to use them first. Once the other side uses WMD, your own gloves comes off.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
You stole my words, Rob.
The fact that the UK is endorsing and promoting the same behavio(u)r than the USA is, in fact, a provocation on itself. It's like crying 'we want WWIII NOW!!' to Saddam Hussein's face.
But I can't understand why they did such a move...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, my point is that the US's policy in THIS regard is neither new nor unique. Most civilized countries had a 'no first use' policy... but never a 'no second use' one. Our 'strategy' on this isn't any different from any other nuclear-armed country.
You think the USSR wouldn't have used their nukes on the Chinese 'human waves' if they'd been attacked, back when their relations were bad? (Yes, Sino-Soviet relations were bad, once upon a time. The Chinese wanted the land and resources of Siberia and Central Asia, and the Soviets coveted more ice-free ports on the Pacific. There were skirmishes, and the potential for hot war loomed quite close more than once.)
You think Russia or China wouldn't retaliate heavily if someone used a WMD (whether chemical, bio, or nuke) on one of their cities?)
We 'civilized' nations keep from blowing each other up, because we don't want to DIE in return.
But there are other kinds of folks out there, 'true believers' who don't care about death, whether they blow themselves up in a disco in Jerusalem, crash a plane into a high-rise in Manhattan, or are immolated by nuclear fire on the ground in Somewhereistan, as long as they can kill lots of the enemy. Most of them believe we don't have the 'nads to retaliate in kind even if they WERE to use a WMD. They're wrong, I think, but that will only matter afterwards.
quote:But I can't understand why they did such a move...
Possibly, they're accepting that Czech police report that put Iraqi intelligence officers together with an Al-Qaeda agent (Atta, in fact) back before 9-11.
quote:Other evidence comes from London, headquarters of the Iraqi National Congress. On November 2, the INC's leaders said that a 16-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, recently escaped from an Iraqi prison, said that Iraq had controlled and funded al Qaeda since 1998
quote:On November 11, the London Observer reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials said the CIA had "credible information" that two other September 11 hijackers had met with known Iraqi intelligence agents.
quote:The level of evidence required for justified action in international war is not as high as that required for conviction in an American criminal court. The meetings between September 11 hijackers and Iraqi intelligence agents–especially the meetings Atta went to such trouble to travel to attend–are enough, given Saddam Hussein's well-established history of support for terrorism and efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. Some may object that the Czech Prime Minister reported that Atta and al-Ani were only conferring about an attack on Radio Free Europe, not September 11. But, leaving aside the question of whether he knows what the two men said, Radio Free Europe is an organization supported and sponsored by the U.S. government. An attack on Radio Free Europe headquarters would be as much an attack on the United States as Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
It's likely we've been 'playing down' Iraqi connections in order to help build the support for the Afghanistan missions, because letting it slip might have fractured the support for action by the Islamic countries.
[ March 21, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So basically your argument for kicking someone is to point at another boy and say "He kicked him first"?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Ye gods! Who gave the Brits nukes?!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Geoffrey Taylor, among others. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:So basically your argument for kicking someone is to point at another boy and say "He kicked him first"?
That's Rob's argument for everything. I wondered why he was so quiet in the Bush nuclear thread; it seems that, unable to find any credible defence for Der Schrub's latest idiocy, he was frantically searching for something, anything which would show that other people were less than perfect. As usual.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
He was quiet because I 'gently' requested him to stay out, remember?
And, the 'he kicked me first' attitude will only lead to an escalade of violence.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
To coin a phrase:
Well, duh.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I believe that part of the equation that is being left out in these discussions is the considered use of nuclear weapons agains non-nuclear countries.
I believe that the arsenal of democracy has enough and varied weapons to resond in kind to a biological or chemical attack from any nation.
The plans for potential use of nuclear weapons against a county like Syria is little but a saber rattling scare tactic used by Mr. Bush. A tactic that seems to be the limit of his foreign policy skills.
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
I think Geoff Hoon and the like would like to consider themselves able to destroy the world, but in reality they are wimps. The US would probably nuke an area, then Geoff Hoon and Reverend Blair would order the same area nuked again (with Washington's permission of course) then stroking their own ego's by claiming that they dealt a crippling blow in the war against terorism. A statue would then be erected on the site of the twin towers with Bush and Blair standing shoulder to shoulder, perhaps Blair will be on his knees, and both of them will sort of be pointing towards the future....
[ March 22, 2002, 08:47: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:, perhaps Blair will be on his knees
So Dubya's into that kind of thing, huh? Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, pretzels aren't the only things he likes to stick down his throat. 8)
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Well, it didn't go all the way down his throat. It kinda stopped halfway down, right?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What I'm saying is that some people are trying to lay this on Bush II, but the truth is it's always been this way. That you didn't know that is not the fault of this administration.
I stayed out of the other thread because I was ASKED to politely, and unlike some other people, I actually made an effort to comply.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:, perhaps Blair will be on his knees
So Dubya's into that kind of thing, huh?
Headline from the Telegraph (I'm not joking here): 'Blair is Bush's Lewinsky.' If it's in the Telegraph it must be true .
Actually on the 'first strike' thing, American policy in the late 40s was, if the Soviets invaded Western Europe or even if the US decided the Soviet Union needed to be disposed of (a popular view at the time, Gen. Patton wanted to take his army 'On to Moscow' when Germany surrendered) was that a nuclear blitz accross Eastern Europe and into the Soviet heartland. There was (as you can imagine) concern about this policy in many European counties, one observer said that Washington was prepared to fight the USSR 'to the last German'.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Given that the USSR didn't have any nuclear capability at the time, it would have been the best time to do that.. of course, the US only had two bombs at that time, as well, and we'd already used them.
I've heard historians argue for both the positive and negative aspects such an attack might have had. It might have destroyed Communism... or it might have bogged the US/Other allies down in the deadly Russian winter.
From the number of troops that the Russians had sacrificed to make their gains, though, the poor shape that they were in (not to mention the famous story about the first Russian troops arriving in Berlin, and mistaking a flush toilet bowl for a sink) it's possible that they might have been pushed back. We'll never know.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:of course, the US only had two bombs at that time, as well, and we'd already used them.
Three, actually. Why does everyone forget Arizona?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
If you thought the ruskies were backwards in world war two. In world war one they had to charge the german lines just to get some clothes, and bullets, the average russian soldier during world war one usually only got 5 or 6 bullets, it was up to them to scavenge more, either from dead soldiers, or stealing them from thier own troops. I wonder how they managed to fight the germans for as long as they did. and i'm surprised there wasn't a german flag flying from the (then) capital of St. Petersburg.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Why does everyone forget Arizona?"
Because nothing interesting happened there? New Mexico, on the other hand...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Given that the USSR didn't have any nuclear capability at the time, it would have been the best time to do that..
That was the point...
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
quote:I stayed out of the other thread because I was ASKED to politely, and unlike some other people, I actually made an effort to comply.
Chapeau, Rob. Thank you. Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Hmmm... I think I'll put my hat on again. What a shame.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm sorry. I should have started my own thread. It's a shame to close yours.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.