| Every living person and every one to come has | | | | prevented? Certainly we will have the equivalent |
| the right to have and use any weapon that may | | | | of a global wild west, when many adults were |
| be used against them. The only way to prevent | | | | armed twenty four hours per day and the lawless |
| pre emptive strikes is for opponents to agree to | | | | killed one another, as best they could. That |
| a simultaneous strike, which seldom happens. Who | | | | doesn't happen so much as it once did, but the |
| doubts that the defense policy of Mutually | | | | lawless folks of those days had very short |
| Assured Destruction prevented war between the | | | | careers. Now they find a way to become heads |
| Soviet Union/Russia and the U.S. for 50 years? | | | | of states for 30 and 40 years, in some cases. |
| Who would argue that it has not prevented a | | | | This is because no one with superior force |
| recent war between India and Pakistan? | | | | objects to their rule in any meaningful way, until |
| These nuclear powers have made it so obvious | | | | very recently. |
| that nukes make friends of adversaries; Iraq, Iran | | | | If South Africa gave up its nuclear development |
| and North Korea had/have every intention of | | | | program, it was not just to appease the non |
| acquiring them. I'm all for it. The U.S. needs all the | | | | proliferation dreamers. It was to save money in |
| friends it can get, for the foreseeable future. | | | | the absence of a strong external threat. Other |
| Pakistan and Russia can definitely use the income | | | | would-be nuclear powers are not that fortunate. |
| from nuclear trade. In fact, Russia and Pakistan | | | | They have or imagine serious threats to |
| should dominate this market unless the U.S. | | | | sovereignty and rightfully so in either case. Why |
| decides to compete for the business. Recent talk | | | | don't we make friends of Iran and North Korea, |
| about mini nukes tells me the U.S. Government | | | | before they get their nukes? |
| intends to compete in the new rush to proliferate | | | | Let the U.S. send a new message. America will |
| nukes. These nuclear powers all have the | | | | treat you right, even if you have no nukes and |
| technology to make relatively cheap and portable | | | | you are decidedly more evil than we are. But |
| nuclear devices, which are so much more practical | | | | then, we hate those more evil than us, unless |
| and democratic for the people, than guided | | | | they have nukes already. It is our duty to punish |
| missiles. Three of these powers possess these | | | | those we can get away with punishing. Ask the |
| portable nukes and all three are probably already | | | | U.S. President. |
| selling them to customers who cannot make their | | | | It is mostly those who pose no threat to others |
| own, or refuse to go to the trouble and expense. | | | | that remain un-threatened by others. The United |
| Sure, nuclear contaminated conventional weapons, | | | | States poses a threat to the entire world and the |
| called dirty bombs, will have a powerful | | | | entire world has become a threat to the United |
| psychological effect on their victims and possible | | | | States. "All the king's horses and all the king's |
| victims. Yet, a small thermonuclear device that | | | | men" cannot prevent future attacks, no matter |
| can destroy from one quarter to all of a city | | | | how much credit they spend. Only when the |
| would be so much better. Wouldn't you agree? | | | | people of the world are armed with the weapons |
| I'm not talking absurdity. I'm talking reality. It is | | | | of mass destruction that could be readily used |
| political leadership that is absurd in trying to | | | | against them, will there be any serious discussion |
| regulate who in the world may own what | | | | of disarmament on a global scale. Until then, every |
| weapons. "We get the good ones; you can have | | | | have-not has a duty to become a have, in order |
| the rest, like Israel and Palestine." | | | | to end the dominance and submission games the |
| Does it matter if I am destroyed by a nuclear | | | | dominants so love to play. Long live Mutually |
| weapon planted by a terrorist or a missile from | | | | Assured Destruction! All for nukes and nukes for |
| some nation state? In fact, I do prefer that it be | | | | all! At least until love becomes globally preferred |
| a small nuke affecting fewer of my neighbors. | | | | to fear as a means of social control. |
| Where can I buy that insurance, from Homeland | | | | (PUBLISHERS! Free Promotion Here - Now! If you |
| Security? I don't think so. How long would Saddam | | | | will leave a comment and your URL or hyperlink |
| have held power in Iraq if an ex patriot or other | | | | on this or any article of mine: 1.) Some of my on |
| enemy could have planted a small nuclear device | | | | - site readers will visit your website. 2.) I will visit |
| near a Baghdad palace he frequented? How long | | | | your website. If I like what I find, I will write a |
| would Castro, Stalin, Mao or Idi Amin have lasted? | | | | positive review and publish it here at EzineArticles. |
| I know the typical objection to allowing just | | | | You may delete this generous offer when re - |
| anybody to have weapons of mass destruction, | | | | publishing this article. |
| but what can we do when it cannot be | | | | |