>(On a side note, why is it OK for the US to
> be armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, but Horror Upon Horror for
> anybody else to have one? Honest, I wanna know. What makes us so much
> more responsible?)
>
> Kat Feete
>
Well, a track record helps here. The main threat the US has made with the
missles is that if Euorpe was invaded, we reserved the right to use them in
response. The US now has an overwhelming advantage in nuclear missles, and
I do not see them being used as a threat. Conventional forces have been
used, as part of Nato in the Balkins for example, but the nuclear threat has
not been made.
Britian and France, as nuclear powers, certainly don't scare me. Canada
would, but that's because all Canadians are a bit crazy <grin>. But
seriously, there are a number of countries that I would feel about as secure
if they were the ones with the biggest nuclear arsonal.
But, there are a list of countries that I would be very worried about if
they got nuclear missles. Lets see, Afganastan would probably top my list
of worrysome with 1000 missles. So, cutting the club down to the present
members seems to be a prudent thing. In return, the the members of the
nuclear club can and have been asked to take actions that are in the saftey
interest of the rest of the world.
Dan M.
