IMHO given that the terror of the nuclear weapons had long been unleashed by scientists, MAD theory does hold, so the rational for nuclear weapons is based more or less on game theory aspects of Mutually Assured Destruction. Granted that a world without nuclear weapons is the best. But this will never be possible. A second best would be an effective deterrent as in the form of MAD.
Pragmatists really suck in my opinion. What difference is there between using a nuke and committing torture?
it is hard to deal with reality. I know. I don't belive i have to say this. nuke will effect a large number of people over an extended period of time.
No, I mean morally. What separates us from animals? Death counts? Coca Cola? What is the philosophical difference between torturing someone with waterboarding and dropping a nuke on them? Or are you going to make the case that one civilian death is not as bad as 100?
i am going to say killing of thousands of people is worse than torturing one. but torturing one is bad enough not to do it.
Israel has been on the decline for a long time, losing more and more power, the most recent humiliation of this joke of a state was in 2006. Everyone is saying Iran should not have nukes, I agree, though, the fact is that they are not building nukes. They are a member of the NPT and the nuclear watchdog says there is nothing wrong with their uranium enrichment. Now, you can't bomb a country for something that they aren't even doing.
If Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons covertly...... then they are idiots. If I ran a country I would be trying to build a nuke. Otherwise what assurances could I have that my country would not be the next Iraq? Besides if you have the technology to build a nuclear reactor you can build a nuclear bomb.