sanman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2015
- Messages
- 11,941
- Reaction score
- 4,599
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What deterrent? They would NEVER use nukes. Hell, Hitler had all the deadly gas you could ever need and he did not unleash it (except on the poor Jews) even when he knew he was going to die...and he was about as nuts as leaders get.
But owning nukes does not mean the North can invade the South, because they KNOW they will lose that war. The South is FAR more powerful conventionally than the North.
Why would Syria want nukes? They can't use them. Jeez - look how the world freaked out over a few sarin gas shells (that I personally do not even think Assad launched)? The entire world would go completely ape **** if Assad used nukes.
Uh, genius - the entire world would be entirely deterred from doing a thing against a rogue state with a nuclear deterrent. Kim won't sell somebody just one or two.
Liberal logic!:doh
And I am not afraid of Iran in the slightest. I trust them a hell of a lot more than I do Saudi Arabia. And forget them using nukes either - they know Israel/America would obliterate them if they did.
And forget the nonsense about 'they would kill themselves to destroy Israel'. The exact same thing was said about the Soviet Union towards America/West. And nothing ever happened. Leaders love power...not suicide.
With a nuclear deterrent they'd be able to pursue a more aggressive terror strategy - look at what Pakistan does to India.
Finally, no country would EVER be dumb enough to sell nukes to terrorists. Terrorists ARE usually insane (to some extent). And their loyalties change with the wind. If you sell a nuke to a terrorist - you have no way of knowing that those same terrorists might not one day use it against you.
A nuclear rogue would be able to arm terrorists more effectively without fear of reprisal.