Re(1): What is the Rationale for "We Can have a Nuclear Weapon, but You Can't?"


Mr. Anders Corr makes a reasonable argument against nations with autocratic rulers having nuclear weapons, and for nations with democratic governments the right to have them. He misses one vital point. His discussion is premised on modern governments, and that’s delusional. Case in point. When the United States entered into the OAS, Venezuela was a democracy, one of the richest nations in South America. According to Corr, they could have qualified to be a responsible nuclear power. Then Venezuela elected Chavez and became socialist, and when he passed Maduro came to power and became an autocratic ruler. Suppose a democratic Venezuela had become a “responsible” nuclear power. What now, brown cow?
In this world of today in which adverse international trade can result in third-world countries undergoing revolution changing democracy into socialism, that country will eventually have an autocratic ruler like Maduro. If that “responsible nation” had nuclear weapons when they underwent the change of government, then the world would have another ruler who wouldn’t hesitate to use them in order to remain in power.
The only position that’s safe for the wellbeing of the world is for no nation to have them. But human nature and governments formed by mankind being what they are, how in Hell do we get to that point?


Replies:


Post a reply:
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
bold italic underline left align right align center align url email image move quote horizontal rule

Link Name:
Link URL:
Image URL:
Password To Edit Post:

Create Your Own Free Message Board or Free Forum!
Hosted By Boards2Go Copyright © 2000-2018  Wedding thank you wording