OK, I've tried valiantly to stay out of these Iraq threads, but I have just
failed.  ;-)

It is definitely NOT the same old nuclear strategy.  Dr. Strangelove is alive
and well and is moving towards a first-use doctrine for small "bunker-busting"
nuclear weapons:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/13/MN29220.DTL

I am generally for intervention in Iraq, preferably with international
consensus but if necessary without it.  But this emerging nuclear doctrine of
first-use will be a HUGE mistake that greatly lowers the moral bar on using
humankind's most feared weapons of mass destruction.

- Mark B.

Tom Hula wrote:
> Actually, he was just taking the same position our government always takes.
> It won't say, unequivocally, that it will not use nuclear weapons and it
> won't
> say for sure that it will. He did go on to mention that the conflict could
> be
> handled with conventional weapons. They just like to keep putting on the
> pressure by reminding other countries that, yes, we do still have those
> weapons and yes, they still work.
>     Tom Hula
>     Victor S. Barnes Company
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fred White" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:55 PM
> Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Nuclear bombs "not ruled out".
>
>
>
>>Just caught Rumsfeld's comment on CNN in which he stated that nuclear
>>bombs are "not ruled out" for Iraq.
>>
>>Oh great!!! A talking gecko.
>>
>>Hopefully there will be minimal collateral damage.
>>
>>FW
--
[log in to unmask]
Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons...

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *