>
> Full-scale war against a nuclear power is
> unprecedented. If it were to
> happen, the chances of a nuclear war would increase
> exponentially.
That's right, that's why nuclear weapons deter full-scale war.
>
> Justin wrote:
> > Not at all. Nukes don't give you unanswerable
> power. Ask Russia, India,
> Pakistan, etc.
> > People with nukes can be deterred.
>
> OK, Justin, how exactly would Saddam be deterred
> from attempting to conquer
> Kuwait, or from going to war with Iran again?
This is really hard. What prevented the USSR from attempting to conquer Europe despite its possession of nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, I remember. The US and the French had nuclear weapons too. This is what I mean about your being obtuse. You assume without evidence that a nuclear armed Iraq would not behave like a normal nuclear armed power _faced with other nuclear armed powers._
>
> I'm not a unilateralist. I agree with Joshua
> Marshall that the damage done
> to the UN by going it alone might well be greater
> than the costs of failing
> to oust Hussein.
>
> -- Luke
The costs of ousting him don't figure into the picture, apparantly.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/