Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:04:02 GMT
In article <5ijut257ubh8up8634islpcuff4smsru0r@xxxxxxx>,
Alan Jones <alanvj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Actually, lest we forget how this discussion started, the *safe* thing to
do is to equip yourself with the means to *intercept* small attacks, so
you don't *have* to make such a choice based on inadequate evidence under
intense time pressure. Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)
Intercepting a missile solves nothing.
Sure it does: it prevents the missile from hitting the US, which surely
is the US's single highest priority in the matter. (Anyone who disagrees
has drunk the old MAD kool-aid to the point of being unable to think
rationally.)
A full nuclear retaliation solves "it" quite effectively.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Unless you melt the whole country down to slag
(which requires ridiculous numbers of warheads and has potentially-ugly
side effects, apart from involving mass murder of innocents on a scale not
even Hitler or Stalin ever achieved), there might still be a missile or
two hidden away somewhere... and the ones that were fired have hit the
US... so tell me, exactly what has that approach "solved"?
You're confusing ends with means. Trying to deter attack by threatening
devastating counterattack is only a means to an end. Moreover, it's not a
very good one... and if missiles have been fired, it has already failed.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Alan Jones
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Herb Schaltegger
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- References:
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- From: Alan Jones
- Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: British shuttle-car
- Next by Date: Re: Khrunichev's history photo archive
- Previous by thread: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Next by thread: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|