Perhaps that should have been a little more clearly stated by me, It's only a good thing where it's deserved.

Sometimes the underdogs can punch well above their weight too.

That's half the fun in spectator sports.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Like it or not it is the right of every nation to to defend itself (Israel keeps telling us this and the US keeps backing it) therefore it only makes sense that if a nation you are hostile with has nukes then you should be developing them yourself.

That is a two-edged sword. By the same token the USA has the right to defend itself and its interests, and to prevent any hostile or unstable nation from obtaining nuclear weapons. They would be mad to do otherwise, mad not to protect their own interests. Why should USA be asked to play by certain rules which everybody else doesn't give a fig about?

No-one else will accept responsibility in these matters, the western world should be awarding USA a big vote of thanks. This situation may well be coming to an end, so make the most of it.

There is no point in asking them to play by the rules because their rivals know that they can't enforce the rules any longer, US foreign policy has made it almost mandatory for rogue nations to seek these weapons and failure in post war Iraq has given them the confidence to ignore convention to do it.

Singling out these countries and making threats is only effective if those countries believe the threat is credible(and it is clear they do not), India, Pakistan and Israel have all developed nuclear weapons with impunity, there is no reason to believe that Iran, Syria and North Korea will not do the same.

Another question here. (I am good at questions.)


That is a good reflection on the current situation, but if USA can no longer influence by power, and it could well be true that might be on the horizon for various reasons, then who the hell can. Please don't suggest the UN, who could have prevented the Iraq war but became dumb-struck and now represents a corrupt convention of questionable regimes.

So who gets to hold the conch? Threadbare, corrupt, bureaucratic nightmare EU?

China? India - who , according to Geoffrey Archer in his speech to India, will soon control Britain financially and politically. ( don't assume I have a prejudice against India - we taught them very well and will have earned their place by rising to the surface through their own efforts, as previous communities have done here.

Or will we look back to good old days of USA benign dominance and order?

Cheerful old soul, ain't I.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Another question here. (I am good at questions.)


That is a good reflection on the current situation, but if USA can no longer influence by power, and it could well be true that might be on the horizon for various reasons, then who the hell can. Please don't suggest the UN, who could have prevented the Iraq war but became dumb-struck and now represents a corrupt convention of questionable regimes.

So who gets to hold the conch? Threadbare, corrupt, bureaucratic nightmare EU?

China? India - who , according to Geoffrey Archer in his speech to India, will soon control Britain financially and politically. ( don't assume I have a prejudice against India - we taught them very well and will have earned their place by rising to the surface through their own efforts, as previous communities have done here.

Or will we look back to good old days of USA benign dominance and order?

Cheerful old soul, ain't I.

I don't know I still believe there is a role for the UN these things however until the power of veto is sorted out the UN is in effect remain powerless.

I really don't know who the next generation of superpowers will be China is probably the closest but I suspect their economy is more fragile than most current first world nations and therefore any economic depression will hit them hard, India I think is a long way off making the grade even though they have the potential.

What I think you will see for the foreseeable future is the status quo with the US wielding the most power but being unable to do much without at least some international support. However in the long term I think that military superpowers will simply be replaced by economic power blocks oddly enough much like George Orwell wrote about.