🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3r52eu$1ai@firewall.ihs.com> you wrote:

: Deterrence - i.e. threat of retaliation - only works against rational nations.
: There are plenty of nations that are de facto dictatorships led by less
: than rational people - examples include Iraq, Iran, Libya, various bits and
: pieces of the former Yugoslavia, possibly North Korea, and so on.  If
: someone like Saddam Hussein wasn't deterred by what we could (and did) do
: to Iraq during DS, why would they be deterred by the *possibility* - certainly
: not the certainty with someone like Clinton in office - of nuclear retaliation
: against a single-city nuclear strike against the US?

First, I think some would argue that Saddam was indeed deterred; hence, 
the SCUDs lobbed about durign the war had no chemical warheads attached.  
Second, "rationality" in the psychological sense does not necessarily 
matter.  The dictator in question needs merely to be able to weigh the 
probable costs of his actions against any putative benefit.  To whit, I 
think even President Clinton would have incredible domestic support to 
"nuke" any nation that attacked Boise.  In any event, it is quite 
possible that our potential adversaries in such an exchange have a bit 
more "faith" in Clinton's determination if it were to come to a 
response.  And they don't even have to be completely sure; often doubt is 
an even stronger deterrent.


: What is the cost of BMD compared with the cost in lives and capital of a
: US city?   Think of it as insurance against nuts with nukes -- an increasingly
: likely situation.

Unfortunately, the budget does not permit funding of all _possible_ 
eventualites; rather, as the buck gets squeezed tighter and tighter it 
becomes even more important to focus scarce resources on the _probable_ 
threats.  Therefore, as long as Kim and Saddam and Muammar and whoever 
place value on entity survival (and one need not be all that "rational" 
to do that, this is pretty basic on the old pyramid of needs), the 
likelihood of tehm launching an attack for which theyu can be held 
responsible is probably slim.

--
David Birdsey | "Don't rejoice in Victory. For while you've killed the
              |  Beast, the bitch that bore him is in heat again." 
                                                      -Bertholt Brecht
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html