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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (81794)	3/13/2003 1:25:34 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The net number of nukes is meaningless. The crucial change, is when a nation goes from zero to one nuclear weapon. Going from 100 to 1000 to 10,000 weapons (or from 10,000 to 100) doesn't change anything meaningfull. In spite of the fact that the total number of weapons on the planet has been reduced a lot in the last 15 years, the chance that the U.S. will be attacked by a nuclear weapon has increased. That paradox is because: 1. the weapons are in more hands 2. the new nuclear powers are not all status-quo powers. Until Israel got them, all nuclear powers were status-quo powers. 3. the U.S. policy of pre-emption, means all of our potential opponents, every potential candidate for Regime Change, may be faced with a choice of "use them or lose them." 4. the overwhelming U.S. dominance in conventional warmaking ability, and our tendency to use that ability as a first resort, creates a powerful incentive for others to develop WMD.