Now, children, which of those two rules do you think would be the first to be broken after the Warsaw Pact had overrun Western Europe in two days? And if you think it's the "better dead than Red" you'd be wrong.

And I meant that nobody will attack us with their own nukes. Our army can handle conventional warfare. Well, at least it could before Clin-Ton got here. We were supposed to be able to fight a war on three fronts. Now I doubt we could fight on one very effectively.

Large nuke stockpile: Somebody attacks us, we attack back, nuclear holocaust.

No nuke arsenal: Somebody attacks us, they run out of nukes, we wipe them out w/ conventional weaponry. Much less chance of global nuclear winter...

SDI, while nice on paper, wouldn't have worked. What finally defeated the Soviets was that our big, bloated Federal government finally outspent them. "hostilities the Klingons can no longer afford," and such.

The USSR had/s enough warheads to utterly destroy, or at the very least terminally poison, all life in the US six times over. So shooting down 5 out of 6 missiles (a better rate than SDI even proposed) would still have left us with everybody dead anyway.

Our retaliatory exchange, of course, would have done the same to them, regardless of SDI. This would still have likely been enough to kill everybody everywhere.

SDI might, now, be effective against organized missile attacks from agressor nations with limited arsenals... but who does that when it's easier just to drive a truck up to Central Park and set one off in a briefcase?

Oh, and nuclear winter could be a factor even in an exchange of only a dozen warheads. Remember how far the radioactive dust spread after Chernobyl? That was ONE explosion, and it didn't even have a high stratospheric mushroom cloud.

Of course, we'll have to abandon monogamy...

I wouldn't be as worried if a General like General Zia (the guy who took over Pakistan about 20 years ago)had taken over this time aswell. This is because General Zia was a politician as well as a military leader, so he could be trusted more. Before the coup, I hadn't heard of General Musharraf, but after seeing his speech, it is clear that he is no politician, but a General who took over the country because he was pissed off at being ordered to pull out of Kashmir and give up the land that he had gained, and then sacked.

This man is obviously a patriot, but does not have what it takes to run a country effectively. What happens when there's internal troubles? You look for ways to divert attention as we have seen many times from other countries. This would inevitably involve India and the Kashmir conflict, and could lead to another war.

I have family in both India and Pakistan, so this could have tragic consequences for all, not just me. I can just hope that the deterrant factor remains strong in the minds of the leaders because now we have a Right wing government in India and a military leadership in Pakistan. The deterrant is the main hope that we have.

------------------
Do business with us, or we'll ruin you.

The military government of General Zia was patriotic and although some of the officials were corrupt, the General himself made it his goal to stamp out corruption, and used some methods which most people would consider harsh and brutal. However, it was working, and according to my friends and relatives in Pakistan (who are all from poor backgrounds), life was getting a lot better. Then Zia got killed in a plane explosion, the civilian government returns and the situation got worse again.

Although I do not support the new leader himself, I would support a leader like the late General who was patriotic, but also posesses a political brain, which I feel General Musharraf doesn't have. If he accepts his shortcomings and takes on a suitable advisor, I might be willing to give him a chance.

Like it or not, democracy cannot work in all countries. Pakistan needs a strong leader who will take a tough stance on corruption, and in that country, I think that only a military government can succeed. The candidates who stand for election in Pakistan are always wealthy, always have outside interests and are always corrupt. Any aid given to Pakistan is firstly raided by the officials and then what little is left is passed down. These governments are parasites, feeding off the poor of Pakistan, and if the nation is to have any hope of rebuilding, these people need to be kept from positions of power.

------------------
Do business with us, or we'll ruin you.

Well yes some countries work better with a dictator, lets take Chile, they had a very mean and nasty fellow Pictocia (sp), but he really helped the economy, and the average person ended up a lot better off economically after his reign then before it, it's one of those strange things were a bad thing is good economically like after the black death people who survived made a lot more money (cuz 30% of the work force died off).

Actually, there are some schools of thought that would agree that the fastest-working, and most efficient form of government IS an absolute Dictatorship, with all power resting in the leader's hands. Heinlein espoused the concept of the "Benevolent Tyranny," or the "Constitutional Tyranny" in certain of his books.

Of course, the actual GOODNESS of such a system could only be evaluated by the wisdom and ethics of a dictator. A benevolent, wise person could accomplish a great deal -- but a corrupt, mad, foolish or evil individual could likewise do a tremendous amount of damage. And, of course, succession would be a problem.

I'm working on a Story Universe in which one Human Empire (of three) is run by a hereditary Tyrant, who personally selects his or her chosen successor from among the ranks of candidates deemed fit through intelligence and personality tests. The Tyrant-elect is encouraged to become an expert in as many fields as possible, usually including some military background.
For instance, Daniel IX was (before becoming Tyrant) a Infantry Soldier, an Astronomer, and a Poet, among other things. His successor, Sarah XV, is a StarFighter Pilot, Geologist, and Economist.

I have a good concept of my own ethics (fairly benign), and have been fortunate enough to surround myself with wise and experienced people. This is another reason why I would make a good Dictator.

The shocking thing about Pinochet is that the US actually helped him overthrow a democratically elected government. The old President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was executed in his own home by troops loyal to Pinochet.

At any rate, I suggest everyone read Plato's Republic.