Matthew Hunter wrote: > This is the doctrine of moral equivilence, and it is invalid. I was, in fact, joking. Neither option is realistic, I know, for the reasons you stated. :) > The only possible strategy is to minimize the number of discrete > actors who possess nuclear weapons, and to explicitly act against > those who seek to obtain them. Those who obtain them in secret > need to face an evaluation process once the weapon is revealed: > can they be trusted not to use the weapon? What are the costs > and risks involved in destroying the weapon along with any > additional manufacturing capability, and enforcing that with > regime change if necessary? I can't agree. Can we be trusted not to use them? I don't think so. Can we be trusted not to use them except in "extreme emergencies"? Sure, but then it's a matter of what constitutes an "extreme emergency", and that's up for debate. > We've learned from that, and we've proven for 60 years that we > can be trusted. The Soviet Union proved that they could be > trusted, surprising as that seems (and as close as it came at > some times), for nearly as long. Eh, maybe. What's the timetable for nuclear weapon trust? How many years does a country need to have them, but not use them, for them to be trustworthy? And why do we continue to create new and better (read: more destructive) weapons? As someone who's taken martial arts, I was always told you never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. And making bigger and better just so's the other guy won't mess with you doesn't work; it just makes them want to build up to ensure you don't mess with him. A nice little circle, eh? > The genie can't go back into the bottle. Inevitably, the > knowledge and capability will spread. Our only hope is to slow > that spread. If we give in to nuclear blackmail by > nation-states, we only encourage others to play that game. No, we can't get rid of the knowledge (I once printed out, and put up on my fridge, instructions to make a nuclear weapon-- just cause:), and it's out there for anyone to look up. But other countries have a valid reason to be scared of the US and their "interests". We might not use nuclear weapons (though, according to the administration, they haven't been ruled out), but our actions can and do put other countries into a situation where they fear us taking over, and nuclear weapons, WMD, etc., are ways to make them feel safer. Not safe, but safer. And no, this isn't me saying we should allow them to develop whatever they want. This *is* me saying we shouldn't be hypocritical, and if we want disarmament and a cease of hostilities, we should be willing to set an example. Just my opinion, but if the US really wants to lead the world into global peace and prosperity (yeah, right), we should start going about it the right way. Yes, I am an optimistic pessimist, or a pessimistic optimist, whichever. :) :) Chris