When is a first strike not a first strike?
When it's Anticipatory Retaliation.

May 26, 2004

Algerian Nuclear Program

Bravo Romeo Delta

On May 21st, BBC Worldwide Monitoring Service reported that Algerian Islamist opposition radio Al-Salam cited unconfirmed reports from Western intelligence agencies that confirm Algeria's intention to develop a nuclear capability, as well as stating that the weapons should be available in 2005.

In general, these sorts of reports don't merit a lot of credence, although the role of Iranian insurgent groups in unveiling the Iranian nuclear program do provide a counterexample that suggests that not all such reports can be dismissed out of hand.

Launched by Bravo Romeo Delta at May 26, 2004 12:21 AM

Retaliatiory Launches

This is really annoying. When a small state like Algeria wants to build 1 (one) nuke, we're worried about getting hit despite two alarming facts:

1) Israel has at least 150 nukes and this destabilizes the Middle East because the Arab countries don't have this advantage, leaving them weak and causing them to build up their conventional forces. This, in turn, gives Israel a reason to build up its own military. Shouldn't we be more concerned with Israel? They may not launch a nuke at us but if they weren't a nuclear power, places like Algeria wouldn't be striving for nuclear parity.

2)Nobody can launch a nuke without getting completely destroyed, not in this day and age. A retaliatory strike would be guaranteed and I'm sure that even Rogue States don't want to cease to exist.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Jeremy Brendan at May 31, 2004 09:39 PM

free hit counter