(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
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.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds.

Except MAD *only* holds true when dealing with rational people.
We are not dealing with rational people these days,but fanatics.

In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

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.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.
As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.

Countries being so variable in their politics these days,I doubt they would
want to do without the income and benefits of trading with the US,the
largest consumer on the planet."Money talks,BS walks." And there were (and
still are)plenty of Western countries willing to trade with the USSR and
Red China(or other enemies of Western civilization),even though they called
for the advance of the "Communist" way of life.



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.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea.

which would trigger a retaliation that they would not want to endure.
Not over Libya or any 'ally' of theirs.

Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.


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

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

Rob



"direct weapons effects";blast,thermal,debris impact.

Smoking probably killed more of those people than any nuclear-related
things.There's a lot of other things that cause cancer and birth
defects,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net