ascan wrote:
Why? Whoever had developed them first would most likely of used them first (I'm guessing that statement is intended as some kind of slur against the US). The fact that they've not been used since only proves that the philosophy of mutually assured destruction worked within the 20th century geo-political context — when the players acted in reasonably rational ways. The leadership of many of the countries obtaining nuclear technology now, aren't noted for this way of thinking.
Today's leaders - Bush and Blair - are both too young to have remembered total war and its effects. War has gone back to the 19th century, in terms of involving a professional army and countries far away overseas. If Bush had had his finger on the button during the Bay of Pigs crisis, he would have behaved with much more thought rather than attacking Khrushchev and co.
It goes double for so-called rogue states, though I think it will be even harder for the White House to cook up some rationale for invading Iran than it was for invading Iraq, and it would be swift political suicide for Blair if he tried to follow Bush's lead this time round.
I did agree with Afghanistan, but afraid could see no rationale behind the Iraq war. However the same diplomacy that worked with North Korea in early 2003 could help, though that was conducted behind the smoke-screen of the buildup to Iraq. Still, I already stopped voting for Blair in 2004, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over his political funeral. (We should have finished Saddam off when he had actually done something against his neighbours that warranted invasion, like what we did with Hitler - I'm not a complete peacenik.)