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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (70694)	6/4/2008 1:19:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542152

If we gave up our nukes we would be less of an 800lb guerrilla if the other countries didn't give theirs up first or simultaneously. Giving up our nukes doesn't really create any incentive for other countries to get rid of theirs. Everyboy would be better off. Many countries don't see things that way. Esp. if you mean them getting rid of their nukes. They would rather have them if we have them, and rather have them if we don't. Even if the choice is we have them and they have them, or neither of us has them, a number of countries would prefer "both" to "neither", because they can use their nukes (or much more likely the threat of them) against other countries with nukes, and against countries without nukes (and making such threats would be easier in the context of not having to worry about the US using its nukes, and not having to worry as much about the US using its conventional power, which you can deter with your nukes) Nuclear proliferation will be the single most important issue the world has to deal where there is a good soluton and available to us. I don't see your solution as a good one, at least if "good" is defined to include "realistic".