Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree. I wish no nation had any WMD's, but it's substantially more dangerous to the world for a middle eastern or other unstable nation to have them as opposed to nations like the U.S. or Russia.
In simple language its a lot like saying the US and Russia shall be designated the parents and the others children on the world stage. I bet their will always be some rebellious teenagers.
What is the best way to deal with them ?
Jared Kushner has close relation with both S.A. and Israel, and has been successfully building back channel relationships between the two. S.A./Israel provide a counterweight to Iran, which seems to want to create a new Islamic empire.
I'm as leery as anyone of S.A., but I haven't heard any alternative approaches out there. Sometimes I think we should just let the Muslim countries fight it out, even surreptitiously encourage it. That's basically what we did with Iran/Iraq prior to 1991.
I would agree. I wish no nation had any WMD's, but it's substantially more dangerous to the world for a middle eastern or other unstable nation to have them as opposed to nations like the U.S. or Russia.
Lol...what evidence is there to support that contention?
First of all, the United States has used them twice before, and Russia isn’t stable by any means. Pakistan and India have them, but it’s more dangerous if Saudi Arabia has them? Based on what exactly? The Saudis aren’t kicking up much dust anywhere, and dare I say that Saudi Arabia is at least as stable as Russia is.
Lol...what evidence is there to support that contention?
First of all, the United States has used them twice before, and Russia isn’t stable by any means. Pakistan and India have them, but it’s more dangerous if Saudi Arabia has them? Based on what exactly? The Saudis aren’t kicking up much dust anywhere, and dare I say that Saudi Arabia is at least as stable as Russia is.
Interesting
First of all, the nukes used during WW2 were nowhere near as powerful as the ones we have today. Whereas once upon a time they could level out a city, nowadays they have far more reach.
India is pretty stable outside of the volatile northern Kashmir.
If the Saudis get them, what will the impact on Iran and Israel be like, the latter already having an arsenal.
First of all, the nukes used during WW2 were nowhere near as powerful as the ones we have today. Whereas once upon a time they could level out a city, nowadays they have far more reach.
India is pretty stable outside of the volatile northern Kashmir.
If the Saudis get them, what will the impact on Iran and Israel be like, the latter already having an arsenal.
American logic with guns among their own citizens = more the merrier, the more the safer.
American logic with nukes among nations = no no no! Nuclear proliferation will lead to a more dangerous world!
American logic with guns among their own citizens = more the merrier, the more the safer.
American logic with nukes among nations = no no no! Nuclear proliferation will lead to a more dangerous world!
American logic with guns among their own citizens = more the merrier, the more the safer.
American logic with nukes among nations = no no no! Nuclear proliferation will lead to a more dangerous world!
There's a difference between a gun that can typically take out 30 or so at most, and a nuke that could take out millions, and affect millions more from fallout.
Last edited by travis t; 01-29-2019 at 06:44 PM..
Reason: affect, not effect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.