Quote:
|
Stop making this a liberal/conservative issue.
|
I'm not making this such an issue. I was pointing out a FACT that, while uncomfortable to some, is a fact.
Had you actually read my post rather than keying in on one factual comment (which
I can prove, by the way) you'd know that the point of it was that having a large amount of weapons is specifically what stops their use.
As far as Reagan is concerned, yes he did indeed seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. But, as even your own post attempts to illustrate, he wanted to do so by REPLACING the deterrent of nuclear holocaust with the deterrent that the expensive damned weapons just won't work anyway.
And yes, Reagan did propose sharing SDI. Also, Bush proposed sharing ABM. If Obama wanted to share an effective SDI system with anyone, I'd support that.
What I do NOT support is the out-and-out reduction of ONLY nuclear deterrent without having a replacement deterrent, which is EXACTLY what many liberals (not all, so don't take it personally) want. Many elements on the far left believe that simply reducing the amount of nuclear weapons would prevent their use. I say that principle is WRONG. I believe that a significant reduction in the amount of nukes would make their use more likely. As has been stated, there are enough of these weapons to destroy the world many times over. So, a substantial reduction would not actually remove any real destructive power. What does it do then?
Simply, it reduces the deterrent.