23. I am only saying that there are better and more reliable methods of delivery
Edited on Wed May-21-08 02:38 PM by wuushew
that exist for the same effect, than relying on a third party.
With a missile you can dictate where and when a strike will occur and abort if necessary. You get a lot more destructive effect when you air burst a nuclear weapon as well.
Can you cite a past historical precedent when a state actor (Including the U.S) has given chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to non-state actors? In addition to the loss of leverage over that third party the benefits of doing so are tenuous at best.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
