"David Nicholls" wrote in message
...
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/...0406020904.asp
Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
weapons at an enemy site.

By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?

You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.

-HJC

I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial
resources
to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to use
specifically
against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral US?


Please explain the intrinsic moral difference between destroying deep
bunkers
with an explosion caused by fissioning atoms as compared with
doing so with chemical explosives ?

There may well be practical reasons for the choice of one
versus the other but dead is dead.

Keith