Quote:
The countries hosting the missiles WANT them to be there. Think about it: some neighbor is giving you problems, all you have to do is mention that the US gave you THE BOMB. That's a pretty powerful bargaining tool. So in the end, it ends up being a trade. The US gets a guaranteed launch point, the host country gets better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that little fact in any negotiations.
|
I was under the impression that US nukes deployed to foreign bases stay in the foreign US bases themselves, which are sovereign US territory unless otherwise dictated, which means that the nukes are under total US control and are not "given" to their host countries.
And a nuke does not mean better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that "little fact" in any negotiations; it only gives the other party (or parties) incentive to gain equal nuclear footing, or even achieve nuclear "superiority", which just screws up everything. Cuba was awarded nukes because the soviets wanted to offset american nukes in Turkey; The UK and France developed their own nukes in responce to Soviet and perhaps American ones; Pakistan developed nukes in order to offset India's military might, which in turn developed nukes itself; China developed nukes in order to tell the soviets off in the Sino-Soviet split, and support for nukes is growing if not revitalized in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, because of NK's nukes. Need I say more?
Quote:
I personally abhor most of it, and prefer to live simply. But don't blanket-blame an entire country for what amounts to the vices of everyone else.
|
Hear, hear.