![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for a deterent program. David Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify that view? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|