Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bretonbanquet
Sanity? That is clearly as far from sanity as humanity can get, and would create a situation in which we have one state massively dominant over all others. Anyone who thinks that would bring about global stability needs some help.
|
Then I suggest you mention it to the administrations of China and the USA. It won't work with one state alone. You need two states with equal but opposing views and budgets. They are the only two that can fund it and develop it right now. If any and every dictatorship gets hold of the dangerous toys then one of them will let one off. It's like a bunch of kids with fireworks. Most know what can happen, it just takes one idiot to light it.
With all due respect I don't believe you are thinking about this logically. The best and ideal situation would be for no nuclear weapons and no conflicts at all. Unfortunately I really can't see this happening in the society we currently live in. Those nations with nuclear capabilities will not relinquish them through fear of being useless in a military scenario without them. You can't go back. Its made those nations rich and powerful. They have basically ruled by fear. Bullying really. They won't give that up and the only way forward for other countries is to gain the same technologies. Thus the game goes on and the stakes need to be raised to maintain equilibrium.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bretonbanquet
Telling India and Pakistan that their governments are 50 years behind ours in terms of mentality is a quick way to p*ss them off as well. It's the attitude that says to less-developed countries "You're not fit to choose how to run your own country" that causes all the problems. When I say 'leave North Korea alone' I mean leave it alone, not grumble and moan about them and wave sticks at them, threatening them if they choose a path you don't like the look of - as the West has done for years. Yes, it's badly run, yes it's a humanitarian disaster zone.
|
Certainly India is enjoying great economic boom now it has nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has strengthened its bond with the USA and has increased foriegn funding. So "going nuclear" seems to work in getting attention. Governments that think that building a massive arsenal and nuclear weapons and then announcing it as if to say "I'm in the big league now" are the childish ones, and are in the position the USA, Russia and even the UK were in back in the days of the manhattan project. More than 50 years ago. I'm not saying those nations are correct in their thinking now either, I'm saying they made a wrong choice 50 years back and now everything that follows is a consequence. They realise this and need to find a way to sort it out before an incident occurs.
North Korea is a different proposition than any other country with nuclear capabilities. Of course America invaded Iraq. The reason they did so was entirely the opposite of the PR exercise. They knew there were no WMD before hand (I have this from a direct source at a very high level in the UK). They wanted Saddam out because he destabilised their position and influence in the middle east. Nothing to do with weapons. Now if he had weapons they wouldn't have even gone near the place.
As for telling countries how to run themselves. Well America and the UK clearly are quite useless at this too. They can't even run their own countries properly. The main reason being they have so many fingers in so many pies all over the world they haven't got enough left to look after themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bretonbanquet
but threatening unstable countries with military force is something a 5 year old child might think was a good idea.
|
Theres one in the White House already.......