Since you have NOT established that as proven fact, it's ad hominem.
Second, you present an argument that would indicate that you are lying.
If you don't like it, get a hotmail account and present a detailed rebuttal of a Nyquist column.
You are telling me that your written theory above was responded to by Nyquist in such a way that it was too vulger to post in this forum? Not likely.
Who'd believe that Gray Davis cusses like a stable boy and physically abuses his staff, just from the persona he presents on the campaign trail?
Third, your so-called flaw doesn't make any sense. For Russia to suceed the US military would have to disregard its doctrine?
Yes. That's what I said. Basically, the US military would have to sit there and LET the Russians do what they wanted for over twenty minutes.
How about defeat?
If ANYTHING goes wrong in Nyquist's scenario, the Russians have a small problem: they've gone nuclear against a nuclear power, but they have NOT succeeded in destroying all US nuclear forces, and the remainder of those forces will likely be aimed at...better sit down here...the people who actually started the damn war.
Don't you THINK that maybe Russia has a mind to defeat the US military in the scenario?
They may WANT to do so. But the proposed strategy doesn't provide a plausible theory of victory unless every US military officer is a turncoat traitor.
If you think Perestroika did not affect our military doctrine as well as our focus on human and signal intelligence you are sadly mistaken... as a former Marine yourself you must know the shift that took place between 1979 and 1993.
We still watch the Russians--and particularly their nuclear forces--VERY closely, simply because they still have the ability to destroy the US as a national polity.