Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (192464)	1/11/2007 9:27:18 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) of 793930

We can "unleash hell" on anyone today without using them. If Russia implodes, as they well might, the danger of Russian Muslims getting Nukes is extreme That's the hangup, which I otherwise think is a fine idea. "We" can unleash hell on anybody. But France, et al can't. Having nukes is a way to maintain national prestige and standing as a great power, and is the ultimate guarantee of national survival from external threats. We would be willing to give them up because we're strong. Possibly the middle ground would be to allow the nuclear powers to keep a stockpile of a dozen or so, authorized by the UN as "insurance" against a violator using a nuke. If we justify it that way, it might get the current nuclear powers to climb on board. There's already a debate amongst law eggheads about whether nukes are even "legal" under international law. A decidedly firm move by the great powers to declare their use illegal, except as retaliation, would go a long way towards a ban.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next