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

John Cuccia wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:10:40 -0500, "Geo."
 wrote:
>
>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote in
>> message news:45f11bd9{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>> Someone will win, or do you think this is going to go on forever?
>>> Define win.
>>>
>>> Especially in this case.
>> fine, no nukes = sustainable war.
>
> That's what the Soviets thought about Afghanistan.  That didn't turn
> out well.

&...&..&...

Vietnamese didn't have nukes. The Israelis have em & the Palestinians
don't but...

They give big power power to small powers.

Is Iran with nuke tipped ICBM'es a "greater" power than it is
now? It is certainly less attackable via conventional means so it is more
secure which is the aim of "National Security" after all.

France & the UK for example are second rate powers but...they have SLBM
& nukes so....equally Israel is only 7 million people of so....say 1/2
of the Netherlands to be kind....are they a greater power than the
Netherlands as a result of their holocaust potential?

Were I the leader of a small country I might well consider a minimal
defence budget (e.g. search & rescue, fisheries etc) + nukes. Much
cheaper & more effective in guaranteeing "National Security"
(or at least in today's globalised world "territorial
inviolability".

Adam

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