Originally posted by ghostsoldier
This implies that the blame will SOLEY rest on the USA's shoulders....it assumes that the other countries would be stupid enough to perpetuate the
use of nukes.
I'm saying that the blame WILL solely be put upon the person who launched the first strike. As for other countries being "stupid" enough to
perpetuate the use of nukes... What do you expect them to do? Turn the other cheek let another Million people be blown away in seconds... You're
crazy if you think there wouldn't be a domino effect... It may not neccercarily be the US, but they DO have the most aggressive
foreign policy, so I simply put 2 and 2 together.
One nuke will send a virtual green light to all countries with a nuclear arsenal...
I admit I have not read the whole thread, but I would like to comment on this particular post (ghost soldier, I am not singling you out, yyour post
simply represents a common grain of thought I would like to adress)
The whole reason nations such as the US, Russia, the UK, China and France can be trusted with nuclear weapons is the power they hold. The US would
NEVER use nuclear weapons against a nation such as Iran or Syria. We don't need to. Niether does Russia or any other nuclear power.
Nuclear weapons are, IMHO, a double edged sword - that is, there IS some good that comes from them.
This good is MAD. Now, everyone know the BAD that comes from MAD - the end of any nation involved. The GOOD that comes from nuclear weapons (through
MAD) is that no global power will risk using these weapons on another global power because there is simply nothing to gain and everything to lose from
This is also the reason NO non global power should have these weapons - they are much more likely to use them.
If the US wants to attack any nation in the middle east (rightly or wrongly) it can without using nuclear weapons. The same goes for the UK, France,
Russia, and China.
Having a small power with nuclear weapons is THE most dangerous situation from a nuclear weapon stand point. They have MANY more reasons to use them
and many fewer reasons not to. The problem is, a small country gets it's power from nuclear weapons - it is the singular source for it's power -
where as a world power such as the US or Russia has nuclear weapons as THE last ditch all else fails option.
Powers like the US use their economy and conventional forces to get what they want.
A country like Iran can play on an even field as the US or Russia unless they bring nuclear exchange into the picture.
Basically (in my drunken state) I am trying to say that there ARE some nations that can handle nukes and some that can not. I believe that any nation
that is deemed able to hold nukes should first be deemed to be on an equal economic, technological, and militaristic level as the rest of the nuclear
In this way, it is insured that each country would have little to gain from their use.