[demlosers]

The only mistake I made was not having nuclear weapons before invading Kuwait."

Although in many scenarios nuke weapons for the most part will keep an adversary at bay. However small nations have few nukes and crude designs with rudimentary delivery systems, they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence. If they do use nukes against a force with superior nuclear fire power, it’s the end of them.

[moneyrunner]

”Although in many scenarios nuke weapons for the most part will keep an adversary at bay. However small nations have few nukes and crude designs with rudimentary delivery systems, they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence.”

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? We have had 12 years to create an intelligence capability to find out what, where and how Saddam created WMDs. Yet here we are. We don’t know where they are and what was done with them. What makes you think we have a better handle on the Korean weapons, or the Iranian weapons? Let’s say you get the word that Saddam II is going to launch his crude nuke at you with his rudimentary delivery system (say, a Toyota pickup). Knowing what we know now – quick – where do we aim?

”If they do use nukes against a force with superior nuclear fire power, it’s the end of them.”

Fine. But in the meantime how many thousand of your troops are fried? And what do you mean, “the end of them?” Genocide?

Armchair strategists! ((sound of disgust))

[edsheppa]

they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence.

Leaves us out then.