reply to post by N. Tesla
Well, I guess you don't have to attempt to counter my argument, but your buckled hypothetical situation that 'proves' there are no innocents in war
just exposes you further. How many people outside the armed forces are prepared, or given a chance, should a soldier try and kill them or their
family? What chance does a population have if they are attacked with air strikes, for example? I'm amazed you even used such a flawed example.
If the United States was defeated by an invading country, was run peaceable and declared part of the invading country, say Canada (how ever unlikely),
how many years would it be before you or your decendents accepted yourselves as Canadian?
I'm editing this to add a few words in response to the OP: The non-proliferation act is designed to keep the world stable. The powerful countries
make the rules and regardless of whether they are democratic or tyrannical, they do not want anything to upset their domination.
The United States has in the post-WW2 era become the most internationally agressive of the domineering countries, helped by the size of its military
and its wealth, through a multitude of strategies in order to defeat, placate or ostracise those countries that don't agree to play be these
rules.
That's it really. There are of course exceptions; during the time of the USSR a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR would end much of the life
on this planet, so USA could do little but tolerate the USSR's possession of nuclear weapons. Israel is a client state of the USA and it's
precarious position in the middle east requires a deterent, how ever unspoken. &c.
[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]