3 ms·
Seems a bit of a weird double standard there. Why exactly should Libya and North Korea not have nukes? They have powerful hostile forces against them as well. I
by vimacs2 5y ago
Seems a bit of a weird double standard there. Why exactly should Libya and North Korea not have nukes? They have powerful hostile forces against them as well. India also absolutely required nukes because Pakistan definitely does act the aggressor in several instances. Their army might be smaller but outnumbered does not mean outgunned.
Libya got destroyed by American forces because it did not have any real deterrent to invasion and Assad literally allowed NATO in to show he had no weapons of mass destruction only to then be toppled anyway.
Seems that playing ball with the Americans does not work as Iran has learned the hard way with Trump breaking their nuclear treaty. It's because America - just like China and other super powers - do not believe that international law applies to them. Might makes right in their eyes, regardless of the pompous self aggrandising crap about freedom and democracy.
- CapitalistCartr 5y agoLibya and North Korea were both exporters of terrorism at the time, such as the Lockerbie bombing and North Korea kidnapping Japanese off the beaches of Japan at night. India had nukes before Pakistan, and built them because of China, not Pakistan. The order of development was: US built them because of WW II, to beat Germany to them, and aid the War effort. USSR, because US had them. China, because USSR. India, because China. Pakistan, because India.
- vimacs2 5y agoIf being an exporter of terrorism is all it takes to be disqualified to possess nukes, then the USA and Russia should have lost theirs a long long time ago.