I just assume that Botswani will never like America - not even sure there is a Botswani and if there is if they like the America or not. So any country that does not like the US before we nuke our ememies will probably not like the US afterward. For the countries that are US allies they would understand that we are nuking US enemies to serure their futures also. But I see all problems as black/white. I do not deal in grays as this type of thinking is paralyzing and leads to indecision.

The US has stores of Bianary Weapons.

fire agent A from point A onto point C, simultaniously fire agent B from point B onto point C. When A and B hit point C, everyone at point C has a bad day. In the meantime agents A and B are perfectly safe as long as they are not combined.

And yes I have no problem with these weapons, or any other weapon. They are just weapons. The Japanese launched biological weapons at the US in WWII, some actually landed in Washington state. They were not effective, but they did attack the US with biological weapons nonetheless.

Kobeck: You're still a fool. And you're ignorance of history is still startling.

Damn, clarity of thought at FOFC.
Who woulda thunk it?

The use of a nuclear weapon has a political significance that you are completely ignoring that is predicated on the past 50+ years of history. You are examining the situation without taking into account its necessary context, which is always a dangerous thing to do.

Black/white vs grey, notwithstanding, you fail to consider decision making more than one step ahead. What is C's next move? What will the allies of C do? What might be the unintended effects be on A and B? The failure to consider contingencies has nothing to do with decisiveness and has everything to do with poor strategic thinking.


Well, you do not seem to draw the distinction between counterforce and countervalue targeting. Tactical nuclear weapons if used on the battlefield have a greater chance of being judged by the international community as divorced from context, but not very likely. A unilateral countervalue strategic nuclear attack would likely be judged rather harshly (economic sanction at minimum, military retaliation at worst), and depending on the size of the attack, may also be counterproductive from an economic and public health standpoint.

HAHAHAHA! Before or after they place sanctions on the US?

JPhillips is right. You are a fool.

Uh oh, this thread is quickly degenerating ...

ISiddiqui, Klinglerware, flere-imsaho, Kobeck. I appreciate your participation but I think your nuclear war pro-con discussion has run its course. Both sides have clearly stated their beliefs ... can we get back to the initial question-and-answer of this thread?

A rational voice? Maybe there is hope?

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The Islamic world is fed up with violence and extremism in the name of religion and is ready for an era of progressive, democratic Muslim governments, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Friday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184539,00.html

Is he the guy that got voted out of office? Who exactly is he speaking for, other than himself.

st.cronin. Unfortunately, he's probably just speaking for himself ... and I wonder why he didn't say this while in office? Who knows though, maybe he (or his party) will have a comeback if there's a populus backlash to the current President ... and Iran will stabilize.

Solution?

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...1616836&page=1

I'm sorry, but that's just lame...

SI

From my post #44

C. Create a sucessful propoganda machine

But not quite what I had in mind. How hard can it be to spend the $ going into Batman and 'giving' it to sympathetic editors/writers/directors in the Muslim media?

Yeah, now that you mention it...