Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Go Gordon
I wrote: As a result, anthrax might be used in a gamble that there would be no retaliation, since the source of the anthrax might be successfully hidden and we wouldn't know who to retaliate against.

You replied: Bush should tell the UN on the 12th that if a WMD is used on the US, we won't wait to specifically ID who it was. We will drop nukes on Mecca and Medina. We'll use neutron bombs (or current equivilent) on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Then we'll start trying to ID where the WMD came from.

This would be a big mistake. Not only won't it work, but, in fact, such a policy is likely to cause us to be attacked.

Here's why: If we announce that we will respond to any WMD attack on the U.S. by attacking country X (without having first determined that X is, in fact, the country that attacked us), then we have just given X's enemy Y a powerful incentive to attack us with WMD.

45 posted on 09/04/2002 10:16:19 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Mitchell; Go Gordon
I wrote: If we announce that we will respond to any WMD attack on the U.S. by attacking country X (without having first determined that X is, in fact, the country that attacked us), then we have just given X's enemy Y a powerful incentive to attack us with WMD.

I want to clarify that this has nothing to do with the particular countries you named for X, or with the choice of X and Y at all. The point is that, very generally, this sort of policy (of retaliation before identifying an aggressor) will fail to keep us safe.

48 posted on 09/04/2002 10:46:17 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson