1. Most Discussed
  2. Gainers & Losers

hey milesg - how come you didnt answer

  1. 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.

DISCLAIMER:
Before making any financial decisions based on what you read, always consult an advisor or expert.

The HotCopper website is operated by Report Card Pty Ltd. Any information posted on the website has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs and as such, you should before acting on the information or advice, consider the appropriateness of the information or advice in relation to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Please be aware that any information posted on this site should not be considered to be financial product advice.

From time to time comments aimed at manipulating other investors may appear on these forums. Posters may post overly optimistic or pessimistic comments on particular stocks, in an attempt to influence other investors. It is not possible for management to moderate all posts so some misleading and inaccurate posts may still appear on these forums. If you do have serious concerns with a post or posts you should report a Terms of Use Violation (TOU) on the link above. Unless specifically stated persons posting on this site are NOT investment advisors and do NOT hold the necessary licence, or have any formal training, to give investment advice.

Top