From: "John Beamish" 

My second sentence was rather poorly worded.  I'll try again:

It's only regional for the first two nukes.  There are almost certainly as
many mutual defence pacts between middle East nations and the US or Russia
today as there were between European nations before WWI.  There's a scene
in, I believe, "Oh! What a lovely war" where the mutual defence
pacts are brought into play as countries move about on a chessboard.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:35:58 -0400, John Beamish  wrote:

> It's only regional for the first two nukes.  There are almost certainly
> as many mutual defence pacts between middle East nations and the US or
> Russia as there were before WWI.  There's a scene in, I believe, "Oh!
> What a lovely war" where the mutual defence pacts are brought into play
> as countries move about on a chessboard.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:39:45 -0400, Adam field.near the bridge">
>  wrote:
>
>> 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