From: muratlanne@gmail.com   
      
   "Richard Smith"  wrote in message news:m1pl9ffbqx.fsf@void.com...   
      
   Both these devices would be used after a "pre-emptive nuclear strike"   
   (prerogative of being a "democracy" (sic.)) so satellite surveillance   
   etc. is unlikely to be working well.   
      
   I am surprised they seem to be analysed as ineffectual.   
   -------------------------------------   
      
   After a full nuclear exchange it's unlikely either side will retain the   
   forces needed to invade the other or the ability to locate the other's   
   remaining military, plus US survivors at least would likely have driven to   
   undamaged areas in our plentiful off-road-capable pickups and SUVs, so   
   vengeful strikes without knowledge of target status would be mostly   
   ineffective.   
      
   We can already fly undetected to the opposite side of the world and strike   
   the pinpoint target of the Iranian underground facilities without triggering   
   a war, which nuclear weapons likely cannot do. Those bombs and cruise   
   missiles could easily have been nuclear, the hard part is finding and   
   hitting the target. These Russian weapons add nothing that we can't do now   
   by other means such as stealth bombers, sub launched conventional or nuclear   
   armed Tomahawks or ballistic missiles. The difference is range; we surround   
   them with launch sites, they have to reach out from their own territory. We   
   have a well-tested ability to do that too, including bombers over the North   
   Pole without intermediate tanker air bases.   
      
   BTW WW2 Japan was a parliamentary democracy with a largely symbolic   
   hereditary ruler, like you, though their Diet became a rubber stamp   
   validating the Army's independent actions. Tojo was voted out of office as   
   the war turned sour.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)