Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:63535 talk.politics.mideast:33660 trial.talk.politics.peace:34 alt.desert-storm:6790
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!shelby!neon!Neon!jmc
From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.conspiracy,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Option
Message-ID: <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12 Feb 91 02:22:58 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp>
	<1991Feb9.075438.17779@alembic.acs.com>
	<1991Feb11.023449.17583@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
	<1991Feb11.172446.7039@engin.umich.edu>
	<1991Feb11.204302.27201@meteor.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: /u/jmc/.organization
Lines: 9
In-Reply-To: foley@phoebus.meteor.wisc.edu's message of 11 Feb 91 20:43:02 GMT

I think George Bush will correctly decide that avoiding the use of
tactical nuclear weapons is worth letting a rather large number of
American soldiers die.  His project of freeing Kuwait, preventing Iraq
from being able to do it again, and making sure than conquest is
unfashionable faces enough political difficulties as is.

Truman was in a quite different political position.  If he had
let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb,
his political chances would have been nil.