Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:63653 talk.politics.mideast:33827 trial.talk.politics.peace:42 alt.desert-storm:7128
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!IRO.UMontreal.CA!matrox!altitude!elevia!alain
From: alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.conspiracy,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Option
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.195346.8520@elevia.uucp>
Date: 12 Feb 91 19:53:46 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> <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: La via elettronica - Il villagio globale
Lines: 47

In <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>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.

	why "correctly"?  Pragmatism in war dictates that
	you use the correct weapon in terms of gains as
	opposed to losses.  Here the use of tactical nukes
	would be correct.  Strategic bombing (as in Baghdad)
	as been very restrained (so to speak).  The loss
	of a few planes and crews has been judged to be
	an acceptable cost in order to spare as many civilians
	as possible.  I guess this falls under your definition
	of "correct".
  
>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.

	Truman (and the people who were advising him) decided
	to use strategic (not tactical) nukes for reasons which
	have little to do with saving US lives.  Saving US lives
	may have been a convenient rationale, and a good side
	effect, but the true reason was to scare the Soviets
	shitless.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims
	of the cold war.  I am not saying it was the only reason,
	but the two bombs would not have been dropped if it had
	just been to terminate the war speedily.  Japan, by that
	time, was already quite damaged and about to cave in.
	There was a need on the part of the US to show superior
	military strength and the will to use it.  In Baghdad,
	the bombing is meant to do exactly this, with some
	restraint.  The time may come when this will not be
	enough and more convincing arguments must be used.  If
	it is done under tactical conditions, nobody will blame
	the US for it.  I don't think the US consider strategic
	nukes at all.

	I just hope the diplomats get together before anyone
	wins this war. 


-- 
Alain
	    				        UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP