|
Ok, I really don't see how international monetary problems have anything to do with nuclear disarmament or how, if your plan was successful, disarmament would bring any sort of economic benefit or how the US could keep anyone from rearming.
Remember the number of nations with nuclear capability. Off the top of my head, I count 11 (UK, France, Russsia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakstan, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and Canada) with at least 3 others (Brazil, S. Africa and Germany) probably able to produce a bomb in a year should they so choose. If all 11 simulateously attack the US (which is the actual worst case scenario) in the face of forced disarmament, North America becomes uninhabitable. We don't lose a few cities (and since I live in Chicago - a probable target city - thanks for offering up my life in your hairbrained scheme), we lose everything except maybe some of the Aleutian Islands and some deep mineshafts. If Russia and China alone attack us, the same outcome is probable. If Russia attacks us alone, it depends on their targeting, but expect to lose not 4 or 5 large cities but more like every city with 100,000+ people. One rocket could potentially take out all of New England with multiple entry warheads. The Russian Rocket Corp is one of the few well-funded parts of their military, and it remains the elite assignment. Clearly you need to brush up on the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine and what it's all about.
Look, I'm all for monetary reform, but your suggestion is tatamount to trying to hold back the tide. There is no way in hell that it would ever work, and the best case scenario, as I see it, is an arms race that reinvigorates the military industrial complex.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|