>
>
>Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote:
>If we lacked the ability to demolish small countries and had to rely on
>international cooperation for protection, like Luxembourg, the world would
>be a better place.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim? Even facing harsh sanctions, Iraq
>continues a nuclear programme. There is no way Pakistan or India will give
>up their nuclear weapons.
And we have actually used the fuckers, twice on human beings, and at least 42 times by my count (last updated around 1987) as more or less serious threats. So don't talk to me about rogue, nuclear-armed nations--we live in thechief one. In any event, even if you believe in deterrence--I don't, actually, based on ten year's study of the IR lit, I see almost no evidence that war was deterred by the threat of nuclear holocaust--but if you do, the retention of a handful of nuclear weapons--say ten, enough to devastate any nation in theworld--is totally different from power projection forces.
>That said, the question then becomes do we let American military might
>service ends other than those striclty defined as U.S. interests, e.g., the
>humanitarian plight of Palestinians.
Oh, grow up. Not this side of imperialism, whatever Nathan may think.
>Moreover, to the extent that genocide remains a human practice, it will
>require a substantial amount of international firepower to end such
>atrocities when the offending nation is itself modestly powerful.
I wouldn't mind the US contributing personnel and equipment to a UN force under (say) Luxembourgese or Papauan command.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com