Nuclear endgame: The growing appeal of zero

economist.com

5 points·bchjam··4 comments

Heh, yeah, but...

The problem is that Libya consented not to have nuclear weapons. Now everyone does what they want with Libya.

Nuclear weapons do work as a deterrent, but small countries profit orders of magnitude more from this than big ones, which are hard to attack anyway. That small countries are able to defend themselves against the US is the main reason for the US to exert so much pressure against "proliferation".

Libyan nuclear facilities would have been destroyed in the initial bombing pretty quickly. I'm not sure if the nuclear argument holds water if you don't have an amazing AA system in place already or at least several levels of parity with your enemy. Even then a launch would mean a nuclear retaliation, and I suspect most leaders wouldn't chance that.

I doubt there would have been an initial bombing if there was even a minute chance that Napels, Rome or Marseille (or Tel Aviv; it is a bit farther away, but even a half attempt at hitting that could have grave consequences) would have been targeted in response.

Politicians know that; that is why they threaten the nuclear card when they can, even though I think most wouldn't dare play it.

After the weapons have been built, it is irrelevant whether you destroy their factories.

The US would not chance a nuclear retaliation either. If they had not been sure that Iraq does _not_ possess nuclear weapons, they would never have invaded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com