From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sat Apr 06 2002 - 03:12:14 MST
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> I don't know whether Israel
> still does have nuclear capabilities,
If they don't, they're wasting more than enough money pretending they do:
outfitting their attack planes, maintaining their labs and special weapons
depots, and producing ballistic delivery systems and running laser enrichment
lines. I expect any real-warfare use of the Jericho missile will be with a
3rd-gen nuclear payload, or maybe some hot-shit ECM/EMP stuff. I can't see
them bothering to throw conventional warheads with it, it's too expensive.
Israel is small and close to its threats, and if a real (/frontal) war
happens, has to win fast... or be exhausted in a time measured in days, and
overrun. This fundamental not having changed, neither will their nuclear
option, I expect.
The only country confirmed to have left the "nuclear club" is South Africa,
and they probably never had anything better than a very few inefficient
gun-type "potato mashers".
So it seems that a country has to be in pretty bad shape before it drops out
of maintaining an extant nuclear capability. Or, conceivably, really
enlightened and/or no longer ostracized. Take your pick for an explanation.
Just for grins, let's look at another "do they need 'em?" Prestige vs. praxis:
Does France really need/can France really afford nuclear weapons? Well, it
thinks so--and I have noted before the curious timing of their Pacific tests
so close to formal German reunification. I think the subtext there was clear
to the parties with ears to hear it. A nice loud but distant clearing of the
Gallic throat. Mentioned by no one.
It's a happening world,
MMB
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:16 MST