"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm
saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just
because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if
it's a WMD attack or not.

No, I don't. I *don't* have to wait for the first warhead to impact in
order
to assume the worse and act accordingly. Moreover, I would be highly
irresponsible to do so.

You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a
single or several incoming missiles.

Sure I do- I ensure that the weapons I launch don't get destroyed by the
incoming missile.

Well, I guess you could end it
right there by going nuclear and then say, "I thought he was attacking
with nukes so I nuked him."

Exactly. Launching anything other than NBC weapons on an ICBM is
monumentally stupid, and even launching BC weapons would be pretty foolish.

After 60 years of even losing wars such as the Korean War and the
Vietnam War by not using nuclear weapons, you would just use them to no
advantage by launching on warning?

Actually, I would use them for the advantages already stated. For rational
parties, a known launch on warning policy decreases the chance that either
would launch in the first place. Moreover, as I have already stated, it's
just not that simple.