hey milesg - how come you didnt answer

  1. 673 Posts.
    Yesterday you raised valid and interesting yet complex questions.

    What you feel I am saying is that countries who threaten world peace by their use of threat of use of WMD should be dealt with.

    Correct.

    Your arguement is that because the US and Israel(theoretical) have WMD they should be dealt with as well.

    First - the notion of Israel having nuclear weapons is, at this moment, theoretical but I take your point.

    Israel has not threatened anyone with their alleged WMD.

    The scenario usually goes like this. The world looks on and says. "Boy-oh-boy. If they hit Israel.... man! they're gonna retaliate with their nukes" or something along that line. True???

    I have never heard anyone suggest Israel acting a preemptive manner with their nuclear weapons.

    That being the case - the case for them using them (if they have them) is in self-defense.

    All the above is fairly knee-jerk rhetoric and easy to do!

    This is the tricky bit.

    The world is one of many alliances and shifting relationships with many different ideaologies and religions but, on the whole, is moving forward - wherever that may be - in a manner that, by the end of the journey, hopefully most of the travellers are still with us.

    Now. I dont pretend that all in the world are in agreement with this journey, the course or the method of getting there but, in the main, it is a reasonably stable, predictable journey and in the interests of a growing # of the world's population.

    An imperfect system? Yes. Fraught with difficulties? Yes. And more.

    There is a brotherhood if you like, of countries with nuclear weapons that have pledged to limit and work towards the riddance of them in the long run - (very long run).

    Would the world be a better place if there werent any? Perhaps. Should we limit the spread of them? Absolutely. Can we unilaterally disarm the major powers? NO!

    So, what we are left with a world where all those who have them seek to limit the spread and those who dont have them, seek them!

    The US is at the forefront of the process to limit them. Look at the Russian experience and then say they dont want to disarm the world of these types of weapons.

    But, in reality, the gap betweeen wanting this and seeing it happen is so broad as to be too broad at times.

    And yes - isnt that convenient for the US? Yes. Doesnt that maintain the status quo perhaps in their favour? Yes again

    But I return to the notion that the staus quo serves a great many # of people (and a growing # at that) very well.

    It is worth preserving.
    It is worth protecting.
    And, it is worth putting what you have on the line.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.