@nik... yes I know.. but there is a thing called devils advocate...
in a simillar vein should america juke nuke the middle east now because there are a whole load of people dying in combat everyday? I mean it'd sure get rid of al those damned insurgents, (you know the ones that just won't go away, and the ones that insipre people from the rest of the world to become terrorists?)
I could just as easily say that the US (or UK, or france, germany, in fact any 'developed' country) has prooved it's self irrisponsible with varying amounts of wars etc, but the US is allowed to continue to develop weapons unhindered... I'm all for sanctions against countries developing weapons, but I think that it should apply to all countries unilatirally.
I mean in all fairness 50 years ago America could launch a missile in the states that could hit russia, why shouldn't korea have the same abilities, (you'll note that no missiles were launched in the cold war). and no nuclear bombs have been launched since the end of world war 2, just because a person has a technology, it doesn't mean that they will use them...
consider the same situation in Iran, they arn't allowed to develop nuclear power (which the rest of the more developed world relies on for a percentage of their 'clean' power).
as cantona says, there is no real threat of anyone using nuclear bombs... at the end of the day,
A, any missile that was launched could likely be tracked intercepted and safely destroyed,
and
B, any attack on a large western UN member would probably see such large and immediate response that even though they launched first, they'd probably all be dead before their missile hit anything.
+china will surpass america in terms of economy, aside from anything else they are already a greater technological superpower (in terms of inductry) than america is, with everyone, (including american companies) fighting nail and tooth to get into their markets just a little bit more!
in a simillar vein should america juke nuke the middle east now because there are a whole load of people dying in combat everyday? I mean it'd sure get rid of al those damned insurgents, (you know the ones that just won't go away, and the ones that insipre people from the rest of the world to become terrorists?)
I could just as easily say that the US (or UK, or france, germany, in fact any 'developed' country) has prooved it's self irrisponsible with varying amounts of wars etc, but the US is allowed to continue to develop weapons unhindered... I'm all for sanctions against countries developing weapons, but I think that it should apply to all countries unilatirally.
I mean in all fairness 50 years ago America could launch a missile in the states that could hit russia, why shouldn't korea have the same abilities, (you'll note that no missiles were launched in the cold war). and no nuclear bombs have been launched since the end of world war 2, just because a person has a technology, it doesn't mean that they will use them...
consider the same situation in Iran, they arn't allowed to develop nuclear power (which the rest of the more developed world relies on for a percentage of their 'clean' power).
as cantona says, there is no real threat of anyone using nuclear bombs... at the end of the day,
A, any missile that was launched could likely be tracked intercepted and safely destroyed,
and
B, any attack on a large western UN member would probably see such large and immediate response that even though they launched first, they'd probably all be dead before their missile hit anything.
I'm sure that there was a thread somewhere about the arrogance of americans!
+china will surpass america in terms of economy, aside from anything else they are already a greater technological superpower (in terms of inductry) than america is, with everyone, (including american companies) fighting nail and tooth to get into their markets just a little bit more!
