(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why
are US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have
been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current
administration," surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first
place and not lost so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.

If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their
WMD programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and
our triad of effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear
inventory was NOT used to "bully" anyone into compliance with the
Non-Proliferation treaty. (we certainly have not nuked anyone since
Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless.

Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.


As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.


Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force
have some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net