SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Michael Watkins who wrote (152220)11/21/2004 2:16:38 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
The bigger picture: The US has had for a long time the ability to project power around the world. Nuclear weapons in the hands of other states start to degrade how effective this power actually is. Not all countries might be able to strike the US, but most can strike US allies or areas of "strategic" US interest - be it oil/energy or land mass deemed important to the US.

This is so abysmally simplistic, I'm not sure it merits a response, but I'll make one anyway.

Countries like Iran, Pakistan, and N.Korea, are not dangerous because they own nuclear weapons themselves. Sure, they deter aggression and will likely not be invaded by the US should they have them, but that is an inconsequential danger in the first place. These countries are dangerous because, in NK's and Pakistan's case, they proliferate. Iran may very well proliferate, too, once it gets its nuclear weapons.

And, if you recall, there are a few non-state actors who would love to get nuclear weapons for use in terror operations against us. These groups are undeterrable. Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, if armed with nuclear weapons, could wreak havoc on our soil.

Your thinking is incredibly incomplete without thinking about these issues.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext