counterintuitive -- mikeknight dot com discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

Subject: counterintuitive

Author:
Paul

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:00:21 01/22/02 Tue
In reply to: sibo 's message, "oh" on 18:15:35 01/16/02 Wed

Pakistan has a lot more to lose in any nuclear exchange than India: It's smaller both in land and population and has a weaker air force (it relies on F-16s to deliver its nukes, as I recall) that may not be able to penetrate Indian defenses. That is part of why I believe that India, counterintuitively, would be the first to resort to nuclear weapons. You can find similar arguments from the Cold War as to why the U.S. would undertake a first strike despite (in my revised view) conventional superiority (and, of course, those who believed the USSR was superior conventionally would also sometimes argue that the real danger was a Soviet first strike ....). But let's not get too detailed nor too general. The question is not as simple as it may appear.

Whether nukes will actually be used .... eeek. Who knows?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
clarification	Paul	17:04:56 01/22/02 Tue

well still	sibo	19:13:41 01/22/02 Tue
Not necessarily -- Paul, 01:13:08 02/01/02 Fri