Uh, but they did say that. At least one of them did. It was Romney and Guiliani that said they "wouldnt rule out" which still...gah! the use of nuclear weapons should never be an option.
Uh, but they did say that. At least one of them did. It was Romney and Guiliani that said they "wouldnt rule out" which still...gah! the use of nuclear weapons should never be an option.
"urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar
[QUOTE=Zaknafien]I dont have time to reread the article now, but which one said they would use nukes preemptively against Iran?Uh, but they did say that. At least one of them did.
Wouldnt rule it out, isnt an endorsement of an action, its a recogonition that the action exsists.
Disagree, because the minute you "rule it out" as an option you remove a strength. Now we can agree that its a scary strength and one that in the hands of nuts could kill us all, but dismissing it now at this stage of the game isnt going to happen.the use of nuclear weapons should never be an option.
The U.S. has offensive nuke capability, we spent many years building it up to be able to use the "I wouldnt rule it out" language as a means of having a diplomatic lever. Take that away as an option and you eliminate one of your strengths, in an ideal world perhaps it would be nice we were all on a level field.
But we arent in an ideal world Zak, and by my theories of politics, when dealing with others who are not friendly (and vice versa) you leave it on the table.
There are few things more annoying than some idiot who has never done anything trying to say definitively how something should be done.
Sua Sponte
Bookmarks