----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:36:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
>
>
>
> On 11-08-06 02:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Stephen A. Lawrence<[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
>>>
>> Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in
>>> which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India and
> Pakistan
>>> -- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all
> rational folk
>>> on the planet.
>>
>> what about the Iran/Irag war and the numerous wars in Africa?
>
> Did you mis-parse my negative construct?
>
> Iraq, Iran, and nearly all parties in Africa are *not* nuclear armed. All
> the
> conflicts to which you refer had at least one party which was *not* nuclear
> armed.
>
> It's just too dangerous to go to war if both parties have the bomb. Hence,
> the Pax Atomica, which kept the peace between Russia and the United States
> for
> decades, during which they shoved each other around in other ways, vying for
> the
> title of Globally Dominant Power. In the pre-atomic age, there would have
> been
> a WWIII coming hard on the heels of WWII, as the US and USSR slugged it out
> for
> the championship.
>
You said "AT LEAST one party which was not nuclear armed", which I took to mean
one or both parties which were not nuclear armed.
Harry
