From: Ad 

John Cuccia wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:53:34 -0500, "Geo."
 wrote:
>
>> Reducing yes, eliminating nuclear weapons is not possible, the genie cannot
>> be put back in the bottle. The best solution is something like
>> US/Russia/China maintaining some nukes so that they keep each other in line
>> then all the other countries signing protection agreements with at least two
>> of them each so nobody attacks any other country with impunity.
>
> That'll never happen.  There's no way you can convince France, UK,
> India, Pakistan, or Israel to disarm.
>
>> The only other likely solution is for most countries to maintain a nuclear
>> arsenal which is more likely to result in one being either stolen or used
>> accidentally.
>
> That isn't an "other likely solution", it is reality.

I think it will get worse before it gets better.

Basically nukes are worthwhile if you have them & the other doesn't.

Once equality is reached then things are worse than before as now all
conventional stuff is so much wasted money.

e.g. to take a current example: Israel vs Iran.

Whilst Israel is the only possessor of Nukes the world is sweet & the
need to disarm is low.

However were israeli weapons to create a nuclear domino starting with Iran
& ending with Egypt & Saudi & then possibly even Syria being
armed with nukes & suddenly the world ain't so sweet.

So Chinese Nukes are sweet till...Taiwan, India, Vietnam etc.etc. all also
get nukes & then....the PLA is simply an arm of the strategic rocket
forces.

The old world of the super/major powers being the only boys with the toys
was busted wide open by the south asians (India & Pakistan) & now
the reality is.....more nukes in more places & thus a steady diminution
of the big boy's power or.....

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5