Sat, 9 Mar 2002 20:51:03 -0500
<Shrug> From a great power perspective there are really only two
1) China or Russia explains that if the US uses a nuke they will retaliate.
2) China or Russia says, "great. Now I hope you have no objection to us
using tac nukes on any third world country we feel like?"
Also, the US is hated in some quarter, but using a nuke could very well lead
to serious international ostracisization. Japan and Europe will not take it
lightly. No, you are militarily invulnerable - but diplomaticaly and
economicaly you can and most likely will be punished if you use nukes. It
is one of the last few taboos and if you use it it had best be in response
to a WMD attack on you, becuase any other reason will not wash. Your
choice, though. Your the 1000 lb gorilla and no one can stop you from doing
whatever you want.
From: "John Hall"
Subject: RE: All Bets Are ON
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 15:04:09 -0800
I do believe that past restraint emboldened the terrorists. Saddam was
encouraged to try our mettle precisely for this reason, and said so. I
agree such ideas might not be completely irrational, but they seem to hit
the right cultural buttons over there.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
In a message dated Sat, 9 Mar 2002 2:37:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ciamac
> On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 08:15 AM, Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:
> > Of course, my first reaction was "How the hell did this get leaked?"
> > My second: "Is this responsible reporting?"
> Because the administration wanted it leaked, of course. Why else would a
> report on a topic this sensitive have large unclassified portions. It
> fits perfectly into the "crazier than thou" theory of US foreign policy
I'll buy that, and I'll even pay too much for it. I don't believe, however,
that our failure to punish the murderers of Americans emboldened anyone to
attack us. That INDIVIDUALS perpetrated the act means only that individuals
did what no COUNTRY would dare. This was, after all, a suicide mission.