Quote:
Not to mention France, Britain? 
|
Heh, I put them in the same situation as NATO-at-Large (victims of an earlier era), but I acknowledge your point.
Quote:
|
Regarding Iran, N-Korea, Brazil, the answer is easy: to be able to stop the US. There is a strong movement in south America to push back the enormous Us influence there, especially that of corporations that act with support of the US government. Iran and NK must not be explained, I think.
|
I agree with you that, from THEIR perspective, that's the idea, but I find the idea fundamentally flawed - all they are doing is inviting total destruction.
This is specifically why I believe in a somewhat militaristic society. If nations knew that the so-called free world wouldn't tolerate the production of such arms, they simply wouldn't attempt to build them. Instead, we are confronted with a world of suggestions and diplomacy without teeth.
Here's a philosophical musing - hindsight being 20/20, if 2 million people were killed in a nuclear bombing, would not a war costing 200 thousand lives be worth stopping it?
The problem arises when one considers that prevention often shows no direct gain. Thusly, engaging in such a war that is successful will often not yield its results directly, leading many to believe the war to be unsuccessful.
This is not to say that I'm pro-war ... I am not at all. However, I do believe that these weapons must not be used, at nearly any cost.
Also consider that it would be far better to "allow" nations such as Brazil to obtain such weapons while denying natiions such as Iran, as any nation ideologically welcoming to its own destruction is to be fear above all else. Hell, even Israel and its own eschatology sees itself as a survivor. Can a fundamentalist Islamic country say the same?