disturbing report: nukes may fall into taliban's hands??
Rodent of Unusual Size
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:42:53 -0400
Personally, I find the possibility of an A-attack on the
U.S. rather more disturbing than a B-attack.
A-weapons have a higher guaranteed yield in terms of
anti-personnel effect than B-weapons. At a minimum,
even a tactical device detonated in any target area
will ensure direct casualties (incineration) in the
hundreds, and secondary casualties (radiation) in the
thousands. That's a minimum.
In addition, atomic weapons have been a cultural bugaboo
for over half a century; I think that has tarnished their
'horror weapon' escutcheon a trifle. B-weapons are
still bright and shiny in that respect, in part because
of their very insidiousness.
Put it this way: If a B-attack is launched against the
U.S. (or the coalition or whatever they're calling it
this week), no-one would suggest nor countenance a reprisal
in kind. However, I don't think that is necessarily true
for an A-attack. Not only do I strongly suspect that
a reprisal-in-kind would be suggested, but I think it
may well receive serious consideration, and less condemnation
than the B-attack scenario.
And once *anyone* uses A-weapons, the gates of hell are
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"