Geoff Galitz wrote:
The MAD doctrine still applies. Attacking advancing formations with
tactical nukes is still a far cry from a full-scale nuke exchange. The
former is a battlefield tactic and places limited (friendly) military units
in danger while the latter will destroy your labor force, production
capabilities and so on. In spite of what we might think of how crazy those
guys are behind the big red button the generals and politicians tend to
realize these facts.
While I'm less confident of our politicians (although I do have faith in
our current Secretary of Defense: He left our University to take that
slot from Rumsfeld and I knew him as a smart, thoughtful, insightful
guy), I have a lot of faith in our generals.
If I might complete devolve the thread and go waaaay off-topic. Does anyone
remember the movie Failsafe?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/
http://classicfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/fail_safe
Slim Pickens was a MASTER!
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Geoff Jacobs
Sent: Samstag, 21. Juni 2008 07:54
To: Glen Beane
Cc: Beowulf List
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Re: "hobbyists"
[stuff snipped]
That's why I think nuclear weapons are hardly a mean to kill military
troops on a battlefield.
Strategic nukes, no. Tactical nukes, yes.
Now find an effective way of preventing a tactical exchange from
escalating to a strategic exchange.
--
Gerry Creager -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
