> > missiles. We don't need
> > proliferation. We need nuclear disarmament.
> I agree, starting with the United States, Russia, the
> UK, France, and China. And Israel, Pakistan and India.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> happily dated today.) however, until they do, why
> shouldn't NK, Iran, and anyone on the potential Axis
> of Evil list (France, for example) get a bomb?
Japan and South Korea could build a nuclear arsenal. Why not Saudi Arabia as a NWS? Brazil could change its policies.
-Maybe generalized proliferation would be better because: 1-Nuclear weapons cannot be "uninvented", so, countries who have technology to build them can easily rebuild them if threatened. Disarmament so is a utopia unless new technologies make nuclear weapons obsolete. 2-When two states have nuclear weapons, both of them know that they can´t win a war against the other, so there is no advantege in starting a war in which defeat (or a devastating stalemate) is almost certain. This probably prevented the cold war to become hot. -And of course, the US agression war against a essentially disarmed country -will no doubt trigger a new nuclear waepons race. It´s almost certain Iran -will pursue nuclear technology, as almost any country who wants to avoid -being threatened by US imperialism.
Alexandre Fenelon