Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Quote:
|
Yet its effect could be more beneficial than gloomsters expect. Stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction depends on driving up costs to would-be proliferators, and driving down benefits that acquiring such weapons is expected to bring. By taking on Iraq, America is demonstrating to other nuclear wannabes how high the price of rule-breaking can be.
|
Interesting point. Anyone else have thoughts?
Generally, I regard the pro-war arguments are being pretty weak, but the Economist has at times made compelling cases for it. |
This only addresses a symptom of the problem and not the cause. A stop-gap measure at best. What is needed is a world-wide effort of complete disarmament of every nation which has weapons of mass destruction. The case is articulated best in this article from the Nation:
The case for disarmament