[ RadSafe ] Re: Contined Need for Nuclear Deterrent -"what are we saving them for?"

[John Jacobus]

Howard,
Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis, I do not recall
any instance where nuclear weapons played a part in
the determination of outcome of the confrontation. 
They have played no part in preventing any war that I
can think of.

I doubt that Kaddafi, Saddam, Zarkawi, Komenehei, etc.
were ever restrained by our nuclear deterent.  They
certainly did not stop Saddam from killing his fellow
Iraqis.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Is N. Korea less likely to invade S Korea or launch
> nuclear missile on USA
> while the USS Washington (which I toured) and other
> nuclear deterrents are ready?
>  
> Is Russia less likely to use its nuclear capacity
> (like ours, still capable of wiping out
> most of the large cities on earth), while we also
> have nuclear deterrent? 
> 
> Is Al Queda less likely to atomize Washington DC
> with a bomb from the Mullahs, knowing Mecca could
> feel the nuclear deterrent?
>  
> I am grateful for the alert but restrained
> scientists, leaders and military (USA and Russian)
> who have brought the longest peace to Europe in my
> history books. 
> I am grateful for a Bush Policy that has so far
> restrained the bullies - Kaddafi, Saddam, Zarkawi,
> Komenehei, etc, some of whom have declared intention
> of atom bombing the USA. 
> I am disgusted with media that will not report the
> Bush Policy saving the 100 Iraqi Saddam murdered
> daily and protecting us from Saddam's recessed
> nuclear bomb team (Duelfer Commission).  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maury,
> I think that we have to look at the associated
> politics. While there had been talk of using nuclear
> weapons in the Korean War and in Viet Nam, they were
> not. So, what are saving them for?
> 
> --- maurysis at ev1.net wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > The Hirsch comment is an interesting rationale
> that
> does not seem very 
> > rational .... It has been noted that the only way
> to
> make sure that 
> > government doesn't abuse its power is to not grant
> it in the first 
> > place. The nuclear genie has long since departed.
> A
> nation without 
> > nuclear weapons can render citizens or a society
> equally dead by a wide 
> > variety of methods.
> > Cheers,
> > Maury&Dog
> > 
> > =================
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > 
> > >Nature 438, 13 (3 November 2005) 
> > >Physicists denounce aggressive nuclear policy
> > >
> > >More than 700 physicists from around the world
> have
> signed a petition opposing a US policy that would
> > >permit the use of nuclear weapons against
> non-nuclear nations.
> > >
> > >Spawned during a lunchtime talk at the University
> of
> > >California, San Diego (UCSD), the petition is
> being
> > >submitted to US government leaders. Eight Nobel
> > >laureates have signed the petition, which was
> started
> > >by UCSD physicists Kim Griest and Jorge Hirsch.
> > >
> > >The administration of President George W. Bush
> has
> > >said that, if provoked, it would consider using
> > >nuclear bombs on a country without such weapons.
> > >
> > >"Physicists were responsible for these weapons,"
> says
> > >Hirsch, a native of Argentina. "We need to speak
> out
> > >more." The petitioners hope to win the support of
> the
> > >American Physical Society and the International
> Atomic
> > >Energy Agency at board meetings later this month.
> > >
> > > http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition
> > >
> > >+++++++++++++++++++
> 
> > >
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
On Oct. 5, 1947, in the first televised White House address, President Truman asked Americans to refrain from eating meat on Tuesdays and poultry on Thursdays to help stockpile grain for starving people in Europe. 

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com