In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:25:03 -0800: Hi, [snip] >>>>> It eliminates the need for occupation. >>>> >>>> What does this mean? >>> >>> It means if you wipe out the population you don't need to occupy the >>> country with massive amounts of troops. >> >> If you drop enough nukes to wipe out the country you have committed >> genocide and >> the land itself is useless as well because it is uninhabitable for >> thousands of >> years. > >And your point regarding occupation is?
I only asked what it meant, I didn't say you were wrong. I don't disagree with you that it would have that result. I do however disagree with the ethics, the legality, and with the original premise that any form of occupation is necessary to begin with. [snip] >> (This already happened once before - see Ur). Furthermore, the jet >> stream >> will carry the fallout around the planet, and millions of your own >> population >> will also die of radiation poisoning and cancer. Perhaps needless >> to say, the >> perpetrators could well be among them. > >This is possibly not necessarily true. It is only necessarily true >for lots of massive air blast weapons. Growing up I lived for years >in the path of fallout from nuclear testing. Sure, lots of people >probably have died from cancer from the tests, but the world goes >on. Few think of it today. This sort of reasoning leads to total annihilation of the human race. Sure the World may go on, but then again it also may not. There is a considerable difference between a few nuclear tests, and all out nuclear war. And even if a few hardy souls do manage to survive, what sort of a hell are they condemned to live in? Is this really such an inviting picture that we should invite it by casual use of weapons of mass destruction? > >The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be >knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground >burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and >conventional weapons. Why would it even be desirable to do this? What is it exactly about little Iran that has America so terrified? Surely you are no longer sucked in by the words of a President that has already proven that much of what he says is pure propaganda designed to mislead his own people? BTW if you are implying that an "underground burst weapon" is safer than an ordinary nuke, then consider that all weapons designed to do this have to enter through a hole in the surface, and the nuclear explosion itself is going to enlarge this hole and spew radioactivity into the air. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
