Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.
So, then, maybe, we should "project" that we will use them instead of promising that we won't.
We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.
Geez, I wonder how they got that impression.
This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.
-spence
|
Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?
Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it? And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?
Threaded Mode