2 ms·

I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon th

I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon the US and various others in a world-ending catastrophe of mutual destruction, do you think that invasion would have still happened? I suggest no. I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else.

jacquesm 9y ago
> do you think that invasion would have still happened? Most likely not. But the WMD's that Iraq supposedly did have were used as a fig-leaf to invade anyway. My reasoning at the time was that the fact that they were invaded more or less proved that they didn't have any and dr. David Kelly's assessment for UNSCOM pretty much proved that. > I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else. Definitely, it's a poison pill.