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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (152222)11/21/2004 3:18:35 PM
From: Michael Watkins  Respond to of 281500
 
I disagree: The issue of transfer of WMD to terrorists is a completely separate issue than why states might, quite legitimately, wish to have nuclear weapons for their strategic deterrent value.

Yes, potential transfer is an issue, but before going there I think its better to understand why a state might want such weapons and secondly to consider if its a legitimate goal or not.

With over one hundred thousand troops on Iran's western border, it might not be hard to imagine why they might want to have such weapons, strictly for deterrence.

Can I simply remind you and everyone that Foreign Policy is not merely Terrorist Policy?



To: carranza2 who wrote (152222)11/22/2004 10:35:46 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"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. "

Excellent point and as part of any accomodation with iran that either includes or excludes nukes, proliferation of their weapons to others may be the most important issue. For the time being pakistan is out of that business and NK situation may be moving to some kind of resolution. mike