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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (257145)	10/26/2005 9:28:45 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571646

Pakistan, a muslim country, has had nukes for a long time now. No one is "for" nuclear proliferation. It's hard to explain to Israel's neighbors that although we turned a blind eye to Israel developing a more serious nuclear capability than Great Britain, they aren't allwed to have any. Maybe if Israel started eliminating THEIR stockpile, they could convince their neighbors that nukes weren't the way to go - what do you think? South Africa turned away from nukes. It CAN happen.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (257145)	10/26/2005 10:27:57 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571646

re: Let's see if anything changes once the rest of the loony Muslim countries get nukes. Then everyone will be sooo surprised when groups like Al Qaeda get nukes and then we find one of our cities blown up. Of course, no one will make the connection that we should not have allowed Iran or any Muslim country to acquire nukes in the first place... Listen, the nuke thing is out of the bag. Anybody that can get the materials can make a nuke, there is no IP advantage anymore. Eventually, in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, everybody will have nukes that wants to have nukes. As they say "you can't stop progress". Unless? Should we try to slow the progress, sure we should. Do we do that by unilaterally going to war with any country that we deem to be irresponsible? No. First, we can't afford to do that, politically or economically. Second, we are not the moral arbiter of the world... anybody that has tried that before has become the evil despot. We'll end up using nukes to stop anyone from using nukes... a contradiction and moral conundrum. And ultimately a failed policy. In the end, in this age, we need to have a civilized world enforcement political body. Right now the best we have is the UN, but it's not being used properly by the security council members. Whose fault is that? Certainly a good part is ours. The "free" world was slowly evolving towards a multi-national solution... then came Bush. He dissed NATO, he dissed the UN, he dissed every institution that every President since WWII has so painstakingly, carefully, with great diplomacy worked to build. Nukes are not and will never be a US problem... they are a world problem. And a world problem requires a world solution. Unilateral action not only doesn't work, it reverses progress. Nobody reacts well to I've got mine, you can't have yours. We need intelligent and inclusive leadership. Bush has been a set back for the world, as the last 5 years very clearly demonstrates. Progress is incremental... we need to get back on track. If we fight the world, they will fight back. We need to get back to moral leadership. John