4 ms·
You hear this train of thought a lot: "X country shouldn't have nukes". So why do people say a specific country "deserves" nukes while others don't? Why does th
by cooper12 9y ago
You hear this train of thought a lot: "X country shouldn't have nukes". So why do people say a specific country "deserves" nukes while others don't? Why does the U.S. get nukes while it got to invade Iraq under the pretense of it having nukes? You might say everyone who is ideologically aligned with the policeman of the world (the West) deserves it. But in actuality not every country that has gained that capability fits the definition. The simple answer is that it's all about power balance. If you're an ally of the West, you can have all the nukes you want, but if you're not, you must put yourself at their mercy. Note I'm not commenting on SA here, but the whole "we should be able to decide who gets nukes or not". It's very interesting when you consider how U.S. foreign policy has affected the world and the fact that SA is considered an ally.
- ams6110 9y agoYeah pretty much boils down to "good guys" and "bad guys." THe USA and allies are the good guys. From their perspective (and objectively, for the most part, in comparison to the others).
- fnord123 9y agoIdeally, no one should have nuclear weapons but they exist so we're left with asking how to deal with proliferation. In my opinion, a state run by a Wahhabi theocracy should prevented from getting its hands on nuclear technology. They are an ally only in the sense that they have the deepest oil reserves and use their economic clout to get their way. They are also an ally to the US because they bring some semblance of stability to the ME region. But KSA funds insurgents intent on destabilising Europe and it's not behaviour of an ally imo.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]