Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!shelby!neon!Neon!jmc
From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Option
Message-ID: <JMC.91Feb7173927@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 91 22:39:27 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.160946.7474@csn.org> <4{&&#*^@rpi.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: /u/jmc/.organization
Lines: 84
In-Reply-To: rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu's message of 7 Feb 91 22:56:10 GMT

In article <4{&&#*^@rpi.edu> rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes:

   In article <1991Feb7.160946.7474@csn.org> fast@spot.Colorado.EDU 
   (FAST BRUCE ALAN) writes:
   >Gary Strand refers to a "bluff";
   >
   >>> Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one of
   >>> America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the thought of using
   >>> nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly.  And so far, they have
   >>> not gone very well, outside of the media.
   >>>    ...
   >>> This is called a "trial balloon."
   >> In some part, yes, but mostly as a psycho-political guessing game, kind of
   >> like a bluff in poker.
   >
   >The 'Butch' persuaded some reluctant Congressmen to vote in favor of
   >granting war powers in early January with the argument that it would
   >send a message to Saddam -- a bluff, as it were; a threat that might
   >make Saddam back down without having to fight it out.  Of course,
   >Saddam seems totally oblivious to threat and bluff.  And Butch didn't
   >hesitate to forget embargo, bluff, and diplomacy, the moment the
   >'official' deadline passed.
   >
   >When Butch muses about using nuclear weapons, someone should whup him
   >up side the head.  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!  NO!
   >NO NUCLEAR "BLUFFS", PLEASE!

   Seems to me that bluffing about nuclear weapons with someone we are afraid
   will use biological and chemical weapons is at best confusing.  What do we
   gain by hinting that we might use these nuclear weapons?

   Saddam, if he believes us, will be more inclined to use gas weapons.  Do we
   somehow win something if he calls our bluff like that?  No, we just end
   up with a whole lot of dead people, and an escallated war.

   If he doesn't believe us, he will ignore us and then we are left with the
   threat of using nuclear weapons.  We'll be nice and accustomed to that
   idea by the time they decide to use them just for the hell of it -- sorta
   like the other hightech toys we are using now.

   It's interesting that since the Soviet Union is largely out of the 
   picture, there's no mutual assured destruction situation to stop us from
   using our nuclear weapons.

   Instead, the only things stopping us are practicality and morality.  And in
   politics, morality is like sincerity.  Once you can fake that, you've got it
   licked.


   Sincerely,

   -- 
   Rodney

Bush is from an older generation.  When you talk to men of Bush's
generation about nuclear weapons, you get the same considerations
advanced as with younger people until you ask the following question:

Where were you on August 6, 1945?

Then you get answers like,

1. My ship was being refitted after two Kamikaze hits and was
scheduled to return to combat in another month.

2. My division had just moved from Germany to California and
was about to ship out to take part in the invasion of Japan.

Then you ask, 

What did you think of the bombing of Hiroshima?

and get the answer

It saved my life.

As for me, I was younger and would have finished basic training about
the time of the invasion of Japan.  If it went well, I would have been
spared participation.  If it had gone badly, I might have been
involved.

If there are very large casualties from gas, and Bush doesn't use
everything he has that might be useful, there will be some very
angry young men returning from the Middle East.