From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

John Beamish wrote:
> Since Iran doesn't have nukes, it wouldn't be an exchange.  But if you
> think that Iran and Israel, both having nukes, would only launch against
> each other, what would Israel do with the remaining 197 in its arsenal?
>

Oh indeed. Why bother with more than 30 city killers? If targeting cities
with a 10 million population then that's 300 million which while not all of
india or the PRC would cripple them & anyone smaller....gone or mostly
gone.

Each nuke power should be coonstrained to 50 initially & each one
should be put under a web cam for the whole world to watch. All subs back
in base.

> Back in the original Battlestar Galactica series there was a quote from
> the mil on some planet:  "We launch; they launch."  And then
they launch
> a salvo.  If Iran or Israel launch, it won't be just one or two.
>

I'm sure. But that's still a regional nuclear exchange. If they also
plaster Moscow, Washington, Paris, London, Beijing, Dehli etc then.....

Adam

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 05:05:15 -0400, Adam field.near the bridge">
>  wrote:
>
>> John Beamish wrote:
>>> Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Iran vs Israel wouldn't be WW3. Sure the unpleasant clouds
>> might make holidaying in Cyprus, Egypt etc a bit risky but it's not be a
>> World war.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:25:09 -0400, Adam field.near the bridge">
>>>

wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Beamish wrote:
>>>>> I was reading your message in the context of a nuclear
exchange.  If
>>>>> it's gunpower, cordite and HE then it's news on a slow
news day?  :-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh I see... so a nuclear exchange is ipso facto WW3?
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5