>> - what I don't understand is
>> why you think there is a difference between Arab and Israeli or American
>> bombs.
>
> Why do you think I do?
Maybe I have misunderstood you because of your emphasis on denying the spread of weapons to Arab counties - and the language in the passage below, where you speak of one fraction - but if you really thought that Israel and America are as likely to use such bombs as our hypothetical Arab nuclear state, then why not be more vocal about the Israeli, or for that matter the US arsenal? Isn't the Israeli arsenal the main reason these countries are trying to develop their own deterrence? Richard Butler suggested so, and commented that the ensuing double standard was the main difficulty in persuading the Iraqis to cough up the goods.
>
> States can *maybe* be deterred. Non-state actors who believe that God
> wants them to bring on the apocalypse cannot. We're going to lose one
> or more cities to nuclear blasts someday--and they will be somewhere
> where conflicts are sharp enough that one fraction believes that God
> wants them to bring on the apocalypse and gets hold of nuclear
> weapons.
When I read this, the first class of person that comes to mind are the American fundamentalist Christians, who indeed have some nasty designs for Israel come Judgement Day and have a nice literature of atomic delirium to go with it. So I agree with your statement, except that you are too optimistic that it is just one fraction...
On the other hand, I also think that the reduction of the political outlook of these people - even of Al-Qaeda - to an eschatological formula is disturbing: not because we do it here, in a discussion list, but because it is done, apparently, by very powerful people who in fact command nuclear weapons. That sort of reduction of the enemy to the status of subhuman caricatures in my view increases threat of WMD - or ruthless subhuman force - at least as much as the original fanaticism.
Thiago