Gawin's thread got me thinking. Should countries go to war to stop the spread of nuclear weapons? Obviously no one wants to see a spread of a weapon that can kill thousands, but the degree that needs to done to stop this is a completely different question.
We know that diplomacy sometimes works in the case of North Korea and South Africa but on the other hand we've seen it's failure in India and Pakistan as well. Sometimes the only way to stop such a country is war.
Some may also say that the said country will never risk using them and if they do it's not our issue. This may be true as the rule but the exception could prove to costly to take chances with. It is also not just an issue between the two waring countries. Fallout can travel into other countries, and extreme sencerios even predict a nuclear winter or major damage to the earth itself. With these and besides the fact that the use of a nuclear weapon will always come with mass civilian causalities I can see the logic behind such a Cauis Beli.
Bookmarks