you mean 8.8 years, JAC ! And I personally don't understand how we can justifiably argue that other countries shouldn't have nukes when we have them.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 04.07.09 - 11:59 pm |
First off; ya' can't even manage a login? Haloscan will take any old BS. Pick a handle. Get help from a child if you must.
Second; International relations has as much to do with "justifiably argue"-ing as logic has to do with interacting with bureaucrats. This is what we call "pie in the sky" hippy bullshit because it is divorced from reality in that it occupies a universe of "ought to's" and "should be's". As in; they will get rid of theirs if we get rid of ours because that's the way the world "ought to" be rather than the reality of "them" trying to decide whether to bomb us into oblivian today or tomorrow as soon as we are stupid enough to render ourselves defenseless against folk who get up in the morning pondering what they can do to take them one step closer to ruling the world. I know, they "shouldn't be" that way, and that fixes it doesn't it? All better now.
In actuality, the above illustration is over simplified in that it only gives one of many possible uses potential and proven adversaries would apply to an arms imbalance in their favor. As we are currently a nation of appeasers, what benefit would a credible megaton threat present to an aggressive power? Hitler didn't have a nuke and got a lot from Chamberlain by just rattling a sword and intimidating the proto-hippy candyass. Had he zapped Paris before talking to Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister would have ceded Scotland, Ireland, and all the British holdings in Africa all while licking Hitler's balls.
Being that Barry Hussien has already been touring the world licking balls (figuratively, of course, though that bow looked very forward...) I think it is safe to draw a parallel.