The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 6)

"In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction -- an implicit reference to nuclear weapons. One of Perry's assistants, Harold Smith, departing from the administration's script of calculated ambiguity, later explicitly mentioned to reporters that, since the United States lacked the conventional capability to destroy such targets, the B61-11 would be the "weapon of choice" for this role. Although it is unclear what factors influenced their decision, the Libyans eventually halted construction."

p>So there is very little "news" here, although you would not necessarily know that from reading some of the more hysterical accounts in the press. br> -- Bill Harrison br> Arlington, VA /p>

The probability of the U.S. employing nuclear weapons in Iraq is slim. U.S. forces are trained and equipped to fight in a chemical environment. If Iraq employs chemical weapons, the poorly equipped Iraqi troops will be most at risk. At Khafji, during Desert Storm, the Iraqi PWs captured there had lousy chemical protective gear or no gear at all. I doubt the Iraqi Army is better equipped today. If Iraq employs biological weapons, the civilians in Iraq and surrounding countries who are not inoculated (and that means most, except in Israel) will be at risk and not the U.S. Armed Forces, which are supported by a medical establishment that is second to none.

p>The U.S. is more likely to employ nuclear weapons against North Korean targets than any found in the Middle East. The Israeli nuclear deterrent is alive and well and may be used if Saddam attacks Tel Aviv with WMD. This deterrent provides high cover for U.S. forces in the region. Sharon is the wild card Saddam has to worry about. If the U.S. crosses the nuclear threshold in the coming weeks, months, or years, we will do it in Korea in response to North Korean aggression. U.S. and ROK casualties (mostly ROK) will easily exceed 1,000,000 people in the opening weeks of the next Korean War, if the U.S. doesn't end it quickly with nuclear strikes on NK leadership and its stocks of WMD. Additional millions of NK civilians will starve once the U.S. naval blockade goes in effect and the bridges spanning the Yalu are downed. The early use of nuclear weapons in the event of the Korean War going hot again (remember, an Armistice was signed, not a peace treaty) would save lives in the short run. br> -- Mike Slater /p> p> TENURE OR PERISH br> Re: John R. Dunlap's Tenurabilities

topics:
Taxes, Education, Business, Abortion, Environment, Law, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Energy