Originally posted by coolieno99
Originally posted by RATSOYFY37
My point is that if you do purchase weapons of mass destruction (or any other product), and the raison d'etre of the transaction remains
(Iran's threat to Israeli security, in this case), then not exploiting said weapons and mitigating your response deems the whole bargain wasteful, and
indeed it shouldn't have been conducted in the first place. If Israel is to engage in Cold War with Iran, it shouldn't wait for an inter-Iranian
revolution which might never occur, but capitalize its resources for the sake of Iran's evaporation; since Israel has achieved the measures,
the only logical conclusion is that they should be used.
During the 1980's, Russia had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Does this means that the Russians should have use them, instead of letting them sit there and
rust?
There's no correlation here. I was referring to a state of affairs in which one has purchased massive weaponry for a certain purpose, just to have it
rot underground. In Russia's case, it's strategic armament with no actual intention to use it (it was acquired during a nuclear race between the two
super-powers -- the Cold War --, not for any specific purpose of implementation), the weaponry being used as a counter-force against the US. Also, in
the case of Russia, the weaponry not only would not have acheived anything of meaning if had been employed and inducted for a war, but the American
reciprocation would have left Russia devastated.
So again, you're comparing whole different scenarios.
edit on 18-5-2012 by RATSOYFY37 because: Grammar Nazism