🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>a bit anyway, don't you think?

>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.

Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.

One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."

The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."

Which would set your blood to boiling more?


>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic 
>missile capability, on land and at sea. 

The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
reconnaissance satelite.


>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>force and thereby did so accordingly. 

No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.


>Ah. But for anything less than a full-scale nuclear exchange (which translates
>to 99.987% of the possible conflicts which will occur in the next 20 years),
>public opinion and what individual nations think DOES count.

Keep saying that, and people like Saddam Hussein will keep
showing you that you're wrong.