On the topic of WMD's

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Now who's not reading the posts. I suggested nothing of the sort. Re-read my original post and then come back.

OK - here's your original post, dissected into smaller pieces to make sure we dont get lost :

Lets say that the UK came in for an attack on the scale of 9/11.

So...we have the UK getting hit by a 9/11-scale attack.....like I said.

It get'ds to the stage where diplomacacy fails and a second attack takes place on the US, again by the Koreans.

Now, we have the North Koreans attacking the United States in a second attack.

If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US.

Now we have the UK retaliating after the attack on the US.

So...the UK is retaliating subsequent to an attack on the US, and yet you think that the NK won't see the two nations as being somehow connected?

See - I did read your post. I even asked if the second attack being on the US was a typo and you clarified that it wasnt. So exactly what part am I not interpreting correctly here?

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
OK - here's your original post, dissected into smaller pieces to make sure we dont get lost :

Lets say that the UK came in for an attack on the scale of 9/11.

So...we have the UK getting hit by a 9/11-scale attack.....like I said.

It get'ds to the stage where diplomacacy fails and a second attack takes place on the US, again by the Koreans.

Now, we have the North Koreans attacking the United States in a second attack.

If the UK used a WMD on Korea then it would then be in the interests of the US.

Now we have the UK retaliating after the attack on the US.

So...the UK is retaliating subsequent to an attack on the US, and yet you think that the NK won't see the two nations as being somehow connected?

See - I did read your post. I even asked if the second attack being on the US was a typo and you clarified that it wasnt. So exactly what part am I not interpreting correctly here?

jc

But you said

You suggested the UK nuke NK in retaliation to a conventional attack on the US

I never said that it was in retaliation for the attack on the US you did. In my scenario the UK attacked NK because of the attack on the scale of 9/11. I supplemented that point by saying that the same terrorists attaced the US. I also did not say that the attack on the US would be on the scale of 9/11. They are the parts you got wrong(and the bit about the UK only having Nukes supplied by the US???).

But for the purposes of this argument you can forget the scenario where the US also gets attacked. Lets just say that the terrorists did not attack the US also but only attacked the UK. TBH I think that Victor gives 2 far better examples then I did.

Lemming

Lads, lets cut the hypothetical masturbatory fantasies, because .... that's exactly what they are.

lets just agree on the following:

1. WMDs are bad
2. Setting a WMD off anywhere is not to anyone's benefit (in the medium/long run)
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Victor

Originally posted by Lemming
1. WMDs are bad

In isolation yes, in terms of MAD they are "good".

Originally posted by Lemming
2. Setting a WMD off anywhere is not to anyone's benefit (in the medium/long run)

It's just like war, no one benefits directly from war (individual speculators / profiteers might, but no country / society / economy does), however they may benefit from the end result of war.

Originally posted by Lemming
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Indeed, it is a matter of how far into fantasy you go.

Dale Brown wrote a book ("Storming Heaven"?) several years ago suggesting September 11th style attacks on airports. Yet people expressed absolute disbelief that anyone thought up the September 11th attacks. And while the attacks were audacious (and very wrong), they weren't unthinkable "fantasy".

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
3. Hypothetical fantasies are fantasies and the rules of "normality" do not apply.

Well, most modern planning in all spheres revolves around the use hypothesis.

The problem is distinguishing between a realistically possibly hypothetical situation, and one which is more removed from reality - which is usually done by determining whether or not a realistic set of events could lead us from where we are now, to where the hypothesis begins.

jc