I take it that the reference to 11/04 was the last Presidential Election in the USA.

GUEST,zebco, on your post of 10 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM

With regard to NATO I think the only country that US Forces have ever located Strategic nuclear weapons was the UK. They did deploy tactical nuclear weapons in NATO forward areas during the early part of the Cold War, and that was done for a specific reason, to counter Soviet/Warsaw Pact Chemical and Biological Weapons. The Soviets were told that should their precursor for an attack in the West involve Chemical or Biological weapons NATO's immediate response would be to hit their assembly areas with tactical nuclear weapons. As such I believe that tactical nuclear weapons were deployed in Germany, possibly Italy and in Turkey.

The types of missiles deployed by the Russians in Cuba were strategic missiles and the thinking behind their deployment was to reduce the response time of the USA to any attack in Europe. It all came to nought once second and third strike capabilities were developed.

You ask a specific question:
"If America had a friendly island near Russia, would anything in the world suffice to prevent America from putting nuclear weapons there?"

You say "No" zebco, but what about Taiwan? What about Japan? What about South Korea? (I know the latter can easily be ruled out because of the 1953 Ceasefire Agreement to keep the Korean Penninsula nuclear free - The US and South Korea lived up to that committment but as we know the North Koreans who invaded the South in 1950 did not). The US never put nuclear weapons in any of those friendly islands close to both Soviet Russia and Communist China, which rather goes against your arguement.

To America, in 1962, and to the rest of the free world it was amazingly easy to justify the stance taken. Don't know if you lived through it zebco, I did.

Back to Pre-emptive nuclear strikes and threats thereof - None of the usual suspects has chirped up about this, and I thought that they would have:

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction. The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit"

All of the above from the mouth of President Jacques Chirac of France. Clearly stated in Paris, on the 19th January. He also went on to say:

"....that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. President Chirac says France's nuclear arsenal could deliver a targeted strike. The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction. At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties." (i.e. Iran)

Not much "wild speculation" about the French intention is there Donuel, Chirac has all but declared that it's the first line of defence. - What no cartoon to hand?

Now what did your guys say according to Janie,10 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

"I don't know who I was listening to on NPR yesterday evening- some one was being interviewed about this story. Perhaps some one else heard it can can supply names? According to the interviewee, the Bush administration is not planning to nuke Iran, but refuses to take that option off of the table as one possibility, and that is what Pentagon officials find so disturbing."

Just as well they're not working for the French then isn't it.

But, not one word, not a whisper, now that's an example of double standards for you zebco.