--- Luke Benjamin Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Justin wrote:
>
> > CBW have considerable deterrence value, if not as
> much
> > as nuclear weapons. The Bushies are not anxious
> to
> > risk losing 10,000 + troops -- or unleashing
> > weaponized anthrax on Tel Aviv. And your point
> about
> > Seoul undermines your first suggestion, that only
> > nuclear deterrents have real deterrent value,
>
> That wasn't what I was suggesting. Rather, I was
> arguing that the
> deterrence value of CBW is so vastly outweighed by
> the deterrence value of
> nukes (a difference of orders of magnitude) that any
> argument treating
> them as rough equivalents is unsound.
>
> > and supports mine, taht nonnuclear weapons are
> more than
> > enough. The US would prefer _even more_ that Tel
> Aviv
> > and HAifa be left standing, and undamaged my any
> > attack that might provoke, e.g., an Isreali
> nuclear
> > response.
>
> Everyone knew that Iraq couldn't destroy Tel Aviv or
> Haif in the sense
> that North Korea could (and can) destroy Seoul.
> Some (including, if my
> memory serves me correctly, yourself) worried that
> Iraq might try to hit
> Israel with CBW, but I think even those of us who
> thought that Iraq had
> CBW were reasonably certain that Iraq didn't have
> missiles capable of
> effectively delivering them.
>
> > ...and we knew that the US govt knew, that Iraq
> had no WMD. jks
>
> Intelligence failures seem like a more likely
> culprit to me.
>
> -- Luke
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com