Hi Rene, you wrote:
>What is economy when atomic bombs explode?
>That's what they're heading for, i'm convinced.
Okay, but let's try to blend in some realism here. Which country
would the U.S. choose to nuke (first) ? In any case not China,
Russia, Pakistan or India, because they will retaliate immediately.
North Korea than ? No chance either, because China will conceive
such an attack a severe breach of territorial integrity in its sphere
of influence; South Korea will see all her dreams of unification
go up in smoke and Japan will definitely turn its back to the US.
Okay, but what about a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran ? An
option much and overtly talked about in both the US and Israel
recently (but probably too late, because all signs indicate that
Iran has already developed its nuclear arsenal). Yet let's suppose
the US nukes Tehran (a scenario, i guess, Iranian generals have
contemplated enough about lately in their war games). Iran's
response will be a blitz-krieg attack on the US forces in Iraq,
likely resulting in a massive death and/or capturing of larg parts
of the U.S. Army there. Consequently, neighbouring countries
will not stand idle, Russia and Syria will certainly step in to take
sides with Iranian military actions, and Israel will be forced to
try to rescue the US positions, further escalating the conflict.
All in all, i don't believe that going nuclear will be a successful
option for US, neither in the Middle East nor elsewhere. I am
convinced that there is enough sanity and realism within the US
military to avoid a nuclear showdown; and besides, the pragmatic
American business establishment will never allow Bush, with his
doctrine of religious neo-conservative idealism, turn the US in a
pariah state.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>What is economy when atomic bombs explode?
>That's what they're heading for, i'm convinced.
Okay, but let's try to blend in some realism here. Which country
would the U.S. choose to nuke (first) ? In any case not China,
Russia, Pakistan or India, because they will retaliate immediately.
North Korea than ? No chance either, because China will conceive
such an attack a severe breach of territorial integrity in its sphere
of influence; South Korea will see all her dreams of unification
go up in smoke and Japan will definitely turn its back to the US.
Okay, but what about a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran ? An
option much and overtly talked about in both the US and Israel
recently (but probably too late, because all signs indicate that
Iran has already developed its nuclear arsenal). Yet let's suppose
the US nukes Tehran (a scenario, i guess, Iranian generals have
contemplated enough about lately in their war games). Iran's
response will be a blitz-krieg attack on the US forces in Iraq,
likely resulting in a massive death and/or capturing of larg parts
of the U.S. Army there. Consequently, neighbouring countries
will not stand idle, Russia and Syria will certainly step in to take
sides with Iranian military actions, and Israel will be forced to
try to rescue the US positions, further escalating the conflict.
All in all, i don't believe that going nuclear will be a successful
option for US, neither in the Middle East nor elsewhere. I am
convinced that there is enough sanity and realism within the US
military to avoid a nuclear showdown; and besides, the pragmatic
American business establishment will never allow Bush, with his
doctrine of religious neo-conservative idealism, turn the US in a
pariah state.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---