>>> I am wondering what "right" we have (other than simply might, and our own "feeliings") to keep other countries from having nukes when we have a total of 10,500 to 12,000. (7,300 strategic, 3,200 -4,700 tactical). Now doesn't it seem a little churlish to have all those nukes and not let a country like N. Korea or Iraq have even one? We were willing to threaten their use- or Bush was.>>>
Better brains are working that out who might have that 'right', and I dont think is will be only we that gets involved if a decision is made (to stop development)
We could produce some solid arguments why some countries should not produce or have nuclear bombs.
1.They are incredibly expensive, and despite all of the Russian and US development, they are useless as offensive or even defensive weapons and none have been used in 58 years (since 1945).
2. Playing with anything of a nuclear nature is not safe for beginners, as shown by Chernobyl
english.pravda.ru
<<<<More than two million people receive state benefits as a result of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986 >>>
3. Any country that uses one or a few without having first made its intentions known to a world forum will almost certainly lose its leadership and gain a vast amount of unusable landscape, while doing comparatively little damage to a larger country. ( we could even survive without Washington DC, although some in Congress would not admit that, and we came close to losing them on 9-11)
Sig
. . |
