[Beowulf] Re: "hobbyists"

[Robert G. Brown]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Geoff Jacobs wrote:

>> Strategic nukes, no.  Tactical nukes, yes.
> Now find an effective way of preventing a tactical exchange from
> escalating to a strategic exchange.

Use them on an enemy that can't strike back in a strategic way and that
nobody that CAN strike back in a strategic way cares about.  For
example (just for example, mind you):

North Korea is stressed internally.  They seek an external conflict
and prepare to invade South Korea.  The US prepares to defend it, and
starts to lean on China to control NK.

China looks at the monetary value of their relationship with NK
(negative) and the monetary value of their relationship with us
(enormous).  They lean heavily on NK to pipe down and behave.

NK, feeling betrayed, goes berserk.  They blackmail one and all by
threatening a strategic nuclear strike against Japan or Alaska or
whoever they think they can reach.

They get their ass kicked at the SK border.  China stands silent, but
NK pushes more and more forces at the border and threaten to overrun it
before we can get enough forces there to block them.  We draw a line in
the sand and threaten the use of tactical nukes to stop them cold if
they cross it.  We REALLY lean on China to control their client.

China tries, and is kicked out of NK altogether.  They publically
renounce NK (because of some sub rosa discussions about our 5000 nukes
vs their 200, with Russia waiting to pick up the pieces of China and
unlikely to be of any help).

NK nuke's Tokyo.  The world stands shocked.

The president releases tactical nukes for theater use.  Two days later,
NK falls, its government captured.

    rgb

-- 
Robert G. Brown                            Phone(cell): 1-919-280-8443
Duke University Physics Dept, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Web: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb
Book of Lilith Website: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Lilith/Lilith.php
Lulu Bookstore: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=877977