KGB Suitcase Nukes and Iraq: Ideas, Scenarios, Request for Forum
Here's what seems to piece together:
- KGB scientist says KGB developed suitcase nukes (autumn 1997)
- Russian gov't says no, they didn't
- KGB guy says well, they didn't tell the Soviet gov't
- KGB guy says, umm... 50 or so are missing
...time passes...
- Hussein bold enough to stand up to UNSC/USNSC
- Clinton says, let inspectors in, else war
- Yeltsin says, do that, start WWIII...
but clearly not as a threat of Russian action
Scenarios (please comment):
1 - Suitcase nukes in U.S. and "western" countries
- Clinton goes to war in Iraq
- Nuke goes off in U.S. or Europe
- Middle Ease (esp. Iraq) is torched; then what?
2 - Suitcase nukes in west
- UNSC/USNSC convince Clinton to back down on Iraq
- No nuke goes off
- Countries with terrorist weapons and methods gain power;
precedent set for future demands
3 - Suitcase nukes in west
- Clinton backs down
- No nuke goes off
- World becomes more stable through plural MAD
Assuming the Commander-in-chief of the Free World (oxymoron?) doesn't
start a nuclear war in something like 1, which will happen? A balance
of power leading to longer-term stability (3), or an imbalanced shift
setting dangerous precedent (2)?
Let's take advantage of the capabilities of this list and its members
and hear a forum on the matter.
-- mixat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:05:27 PDT