S.J. Van Sickle <email@example.com> Wrote:
> And your NMD has done its job by making the bad guys use a much
>inferior method of delivery. It is easier to detect,
Not quite, it's astronomically harder to detect a suitcase nuke than a warhead
screaming through the atmosphere, and even more important, it's virtually
impossible to trace.
>and if detonated does much *less* damage than a missile that can detonate
>at an optimal position
You could position your bomb with an error of only a few feet thanks to good old UPS.
I'll grant that you might not be at the perfect altitude, but there are elevators, and with
such powerful bombs you don't need perfection.
>And it *cannot* be used as a credible long term *threat*...
Why not? Once a city, any city, blows up for unknown reasons no country would need
to overtly threaten the USA about hidden bombs in its cities because the implied threat
would always be there.
>It is only a weapon of terror, not an unspoken adjunct to diplomacy.
The distinction eludes me.
>How much differently would we have treated the Soviet Union
>during the cold war if we did not fear their nuclear missiles?
A nuclear missile will always be fearful have a political punch unless the population of
the target country is 100% certain it can shoot it down, 99% is not nearly good enough.
It's not going to happen.
John K Clark firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:57 MDT