disturbing report: nukes may fall into taliban's hands??
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:13:11 -0700
> 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.
As I understand US thinking:
A-weapons are WMD's.
B-weapons are WMD's.
Hit us with a WMD, we hit you with lots of WMD's.
We only have A-weapons WMD's. Functionally, we consider B-weapons TO BE
> 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.
I think I could guarantee a WMD response to an A-weapon. A WMD response
to a B-weapon would depend on whether it was successful or not.
> And once *anyone* uses A-weapons, the gates of hell are
I think that is an over-reaction. It depends on how many, what kind,
and how used.