> At 12:58 AM 8/28/01 -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> >I predict that some time in the next few years a major city someplace
> >will simply cease to exist, there will be many theories about who caused
> >the blast but nobody will be able to prove anything.
> For what motive? Revenge-that-dare-speak-its-name? That would be
> psychologically rather unsatisfactory, surely. And it's not a very useful
> tactic unless you can say `Do X or we'll detonate the other ones', no?
> `Welease Woderick!'
In addition to making demands, it seems to me that the major use
of having weapons is intimidation and its subtle but powerful
effect on foreign policy. Would those who've dwelt on this issue
address this? E.g., if some country builds ten or a hundred missiles
and points them at the U.S. (or some other country whose policies
they want to affect), then they may achieve their own foreign policy
aims to some greater degree than otherwise. Why wouldn't a missile
defense, which (a) works to some unknown degree and (b) whose owners
*believe* it works to some unknown degree, serve as a counter measure?
Possibly even to the point that the first country tries some other
approach (like the reliable one of merely contributing to the
campaign coffers of American political parties)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT