Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:63450 talk.politics.mideast:33581 trial.talk.politics.peace:30 alt.desert-storm:6596
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!ddsw1!bhv
From: bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.conspiracy,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Option
Keywords: mass destruction, anyone?
Message-ID: <1991Feb11.023449.17583@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 11 Feb 91 02:34:49 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp> <1991Feb9.075438.17779@alembic.acs.com>
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 14

In article <1991Feb9.075438.17779@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes:

)No, it is called a "veiled warning". Or maybe a "bluff".
)
)Saddam watches CNN too. If he gets the idea that maybe, just maybe,
)the US would start lobbing tacnukes in the event of a chemical or
)biological attack, he may be slightly more hesitant about using those
)weapons.

I think that in the event of chemical warfare attacks, the US might
very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units.
I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm
not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be
negative, but not overwhelmingly so.