"Miller, Jeffrey" wrote:
> I'm more curious as to under what circumstances you feel certain > countries -should- be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and why. Are > there countries that you're not 100% comfortable with possesion of nukes, > but would accept it under certain other conditions?
I'm not comfortable with nukes, period. But the genie is out of the bottle.
I think that if there were some sort of treaty between *all* countries that have nukes that vowed they would not use nukes unless their borders were attacked first, I'd be a little more comfortable.
And part of the treaty would be that if it were broken by one country, all the rest would each lob 1 warhead at that capital. (If you use a nuke without sufficient provocation, you get nuked. Poetic justice.)
But that's probably a bit much.
Along those lines, how about this for an alternative to attacking Iraq for all those who think that's a bad idea:
We bring our troops home. Then President Bush makes another speech in which he announces that if there's a terror attack against the US or our interests (however we might define that: perhaps our citizens, embassies, etc., abroad), within one hour maximum we will destroy the capital of one of the nations on the preannounced list of "terrorist-sponsoring nations," the message being that if you (the leaders of the nations on the list) want to keep on breathing, you will stop sponsoring and permitting terrorism.
Submitted For Discussion Maru
-- Ronn! :)
Almighty Ruler of the all, Whose Power extends to great and small, Who guides the stars with steadfast law, Whose least creation fills with awe, O grant thy mercy and thy grace, To those who venture into space.
(Robert A. Heinlein's added verse to the Navy Hymn)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
