how would you propose to enforce it. Surely not the dreaded Hegemony that libs despise. Much like gun control, those we fear the most will have it their way in spite of agreements. Then what, invasion?
If we would scrap the current UN and put something decent together we could squeeze rogue nations into submission. Of course, nukes would be outmoded by singularity weapons before we could agree on where to hold the first convention
There is a difference in not fearing Brazil having nukes and wanting them to have them.
What you seem to be saying about non-proliferation sounds a lot like Kerry's idea of bringing more allies into the Iraqi war.
BTW you hold the moral high ground by being moral. Since I know you know that I assume you think we are losing our morality. Comparitively speaking I think we are doing quite well in the face of the testing we are undergoing.
Current Events » in reply to I think non-prolif is dead.
If you are for non-proliferation
The whole thread (24 posts)
- Well thank God that darn test ban treaty isn't holding us back any more
- Try getting your treaties straight
- Are we talking about the same treaty?
- Putin is talking about a new missile system, not necessarily a new warhead
- Are we talking about the same treaty?
- Try getting your treaties straight