From: "Gary Britt" 

If we were to continue to follow the anti-military pacifist line that Kerry
would put the country on, the terrorists would get nukes George, and since
the terrorists don't have a particular piece of land (i.e. country) to
defend (at least most don't) then the mad doctrine that you paraphrase as
the way to handle things is completely unworkable.  MAD is based upon the
assumption that the enemy doesn't want to have their land and people nuked.
The terrorists want the whole world blown up so they the cockroaches can
control the rubble that is left.  It is not a threat to them that the
middle east would be nuked not if they could nuke us in exchange for it.

Arguing a MAD formula in this situation with this enemy is well.... just mad.

Gary

"Geo."  wrote in message
news:415f6343$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:415ed49e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > Yes he doesn't believe in starting a war until AFTER the nuke blows up
in
> > New York City.  That is correct.  Your statement correctly reflects
this.
> > It just doesn't happen to be a good idea.
>
> It seems to me that if you have two sides who both have nukes, the only
way you
> are going to survive is if both sides decide it's a good idea not to be
the one
> to START a war...
>
> Course terrorists don't have nukes, they are still trying to upgrade their
> boxcutters to switchblades but don't let that get in the way of your
paranoia..
>
> Geo.
>
>

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