Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

"David Nicholls" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK, Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.





"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
in dealing with terrorist states?

(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

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 ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

"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 ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob




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)

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

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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.
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.


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. 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.

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

(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

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. 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.


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. 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

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
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.
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.


So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

"Blair Maynard" wrote in message .. .
So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.
That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
(I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
the idea)

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
the current situation.

Rob