Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (3063)	3/15/2002 11:24:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Well, the British (and one other major power, not sure which) voluntarily gave up substantial chemical and bio weapons stocks. I think the US claimed that it had but refused to allow verification, while the USSR stayed silent... Plus, of course, there's the volunatary departure from empire. Well, half of it anyway. I'm not sure that either of those actions really made the British more vulnerable. The equivilent would be more of an announcement that British soldier will never again wear gas masks or use any protection against chemical weapons, or perhaps that the British would eliminate their navy and any air units stationed on home soil so that the UK will not be invunerable against countries without long range missiles or significant naval or long range air assets. The US HAD pledged not to use nukes against non-nuke states (unless they were allied to and fighting alongside a nuclear power) - this promise is now being withdrawn. IOW, the US stance is now - on paper - that it will use nuclear weapons as it chooses... The pledge wasn't worth much. If you can't count on the US to avoid first use of weapons of mass destruction without the pledge then you can't count on them avoiding it with any such pledge. If the US was unreasonable or emotional enough to do just start throwing nukes around, then it would be unreasonable enough to go against any pledge that it would not do so. The only real protection is the thought that the US government will be stable enough and sane enough not to start throwing nukes around. Its not only the only protection that exists now, its also the only protection that existed in the past. Personally I'm more worried about China, and as it develops the capability North Korea will concern me still more. I think China's leadership is sane enough not to just let the nukes fly, but what if in 20 years they are ready to invade Taiwan, and they tell the US to bugger off if you don't want to risk Los Angeles. Its true that a lot of people would like to see the US frightened in to backing down, but I'm not one of those people. I think in that scenario an decent missile defense will make the threat less likely and will actually reduce the chance of nuclear war (not to mention the chance of an invasion of Taiwan) And if our enemies cheat, that's the burden we have. Game theory says that the honest will ultimately prevail over te cheaters <g> And having the most powerful army doesn't exactly hurt your chances... Tim