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: cnyndwllr who wrote (246661)	10/25/2007 3:54:09 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"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.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (246661)	10/25/2007 4:33:18 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

We've made tremendous strides in reducing nuclear weapons in the world. In the worst of the Cold War, more than 70,000 nuclear bombs existed worldwide, some of them of monstrous power. Today, less than 20,000 do. Even during the Bush Admin., this has continued. Put a President in that wants to make it a priority, and we could begin to pressure other countries to join in with us and Russia and put the screws on the remainder. We might never get to zero, but it sure would be great to try!