<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Donovan et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Obviously you have not studied the issue of planning for nuclear war in depth. In fact there are individuals in power in both the USA and Russia who will calmly discuss the survivability of a nuclear war. The theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction) may not be workable in the long run to prevent nuclear war. The future could bring circumstances where a nation decides they will take their chances at making a decisive first strike. If a nation was going under already, facing a massive invasion, starvation, etc., what would they have to lose in using their nuclear weapons anyway? <BR>
<BR>
In fact there were members of the US military during the Cold War who wanted to take out the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear attack reasoning that the sooner we did it the less time there was for the Soviet Union to become more powerful. And the brinkmanship of the theory of MAD means both sides are looking for a sneak attack, ready to launch as quickly as possible, to prevent the first strike advantage. This hair trigger brinkmanship could lead to an all out nuclear war even when both sides do not want it.<BR>
<BR>
Consider that we have had a nuclear arsenal for no more than 60 years or so. Changes inside Russia, or an expansion of China's nuclear arsenal, and the continuing spread of nuclear weapons technology to other nations, will make the nuclear weapons game much more complicated and dangerous in the future. Think ahead 100 years when the world may face ecological disasters, a huge energy crisis with dwindling fossil fuels, a population of 15 billion, potential mass starvation, etc., with numerous nations with nuclear arms.<BR>
<BR>
You are wrong to think that if a small group of terrorists planned to strike the USA with a stolen or stealthily built nuclear weapon that we would have no target for retaliation. We might pick the wrong target, but what happened after 9/11? I will refresh your memory to remind you that the USA has "retaliated" against two nations already for 9/11, an attack carried out by a small group of terrorists, though you can argue we have not targeted the actual terrorists and their support structure, who carried out 9/11.<BR>
<BR>
But if Islamic terrorists knew that if they used a nuclear weapon against the USA that we would, for example, wipe Iran and Mecca off the map, would this not be some deterrent?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>