Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chewie_nz can i say that this is a bit hypocritical
"you can't have nukes, or chem weapons"
"but you have them"
"ummmm, but we're different"
"how"
*uncomfortable shuffling*
personally i find it hard to trust ANYONE who still has these weapons at their disposal in a post cold war era.
but know one will give them up while the "other" side still has them, so where is the insentive for others (N. Korea, india, pakistan, iran etc) to give them up?
anyone got any good ideas? |
Basically the only difference is that no one expects the US, Britain or France to actually use them.
The problem with having nukes in the hands of these "rogue states" if you will, is that the weapons can fall into the hands of some wackos who have nothing to lose. The type that'll walk into a major Western city and be the first to be vaporized taking the city with him.
THAT'S the difference.
Now maybe these "rogue states" will give it to these groups on purpose. MAYBE they'll even lose it to these groups who's activities are far more free in these places.
Those are the risks.
For those reasons, the US even bought the old nuclear weapons off Kazkhstan, who had no confidence in keeping those weapons safe.