d*d

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...inst_the_bomb/
So the US is moving to a policy where non-nuclear countries are at threat from nuclear attack (only from the USA at this point). As a large portion of this board is made up of Americans I was wondering what your feeling on this are, certainly the world has become a far more dangerous place of late and in my opinion this is a direct result of American foriegn policy. Do you feel a responsibility for the actions of your government and how far do you beleive your government should be allowed to push forward the possibility for nucleur conflict before you feel it becomes your duty to actively oppose such policies?

BBtB

Well, ultimately I think its moot. We all know that if the US was ever so deeply in a war that nukes where being considered they wouldn't give a second thought to whether or not the other country had it. In fact I think they would use it more quickly since they knew there would not be retaliation (from the country in question atleast, in nuclear form). At any rate we are racing quicker and quicker to nuclear war, I am thinking of moving into the far north of Canada. There will come a time where no where is safe but I think we got another good 20 years ago there.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

d*d

I worry more that they would use them on a 'perceived threat' ramped up in the media to gain the countries support - and the fact that non nucleur countries will now be under pressure to arm themselves- because not everyone agrees with Americas vision of how the world should be run