"But so what? Do you think they'll use them aggressively? Do you really think that any nation could effectively threaten to use nukes in this world where we're the gigantic wmd holder and delivery master? "
Why do you think they want them, because it's stylishly in?
Weapons are built for use not for show, unless it is to show earnest intent. If they are not seen as viably useful, no one would build them.
"Given our current policies and actions, aren't we more the problem than we are the solution?"
That is a completely separate issue and certainly not an argument to encourage others to make more of the same, especially if you think it is wrong.
"But are there "mad" rogue leaders like that in the real world? Can suicidal "madmen" actually survive and become leaders of nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Well, one of them got saner...don't hear too much about the Libyan "madman" any more, do we?
So are you suggesting we bomb the homes of all leaders who build weaponry that could be used against Western targets like we did Momar Khadafi in Libia? That is what put a stop to his insanity.
"With our limited ability to unilaterally stop the spread of nuclear technology we'd better start looking for long term solutions instead of these head knocking, short term, failing, threatening policies whose primary effect is to create a headlong rush of nations for more and more deterrent weaponry.
And that means more treaties with more nations, less interference in the internal workings of sovereign nations, more respect for, and compliance with, international law, and a "do no harm" solid foundation for our foreign policy."
Ok. I mostly agree with your conclusion anyway. |
